The risk of income inequality

[rightwinger]

So if I understand you two correctly, you're advocating an increase to the defense budget as a solution to Obama's failed jobs initiatives?

Interesting

-Geaux

No, we are demonstrating to you that the Government does create jobs......millions of them

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

I would like to.....our infrastructure has been ignored for decades, we have not had a major public works job in a generation, our power grid is a disaster, so is our communications infrastructure.

 

[zeke]

So if I understand you two correctly, you're advocating an increase to the defense budget as a solution to Obama's failed jobs initiatives?

Interesting

-Geaux

No, we are demonstrating to you that the Government does create jobs......millions of them

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

 

[editec]

JUST SAY NO TO THE TEA PARTY!!!

This is what the tea party is all about...No regulations and the super rich!

What your post shows is that left-wing turds haven't changed their propaganda memes in over 100 years.

When conditions change their complaints will change, too.

 

[LoneLaugher]

No, we are demonstrating to you that the Government does create jobs......millions of them

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

 

[zeke]

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

Why thank you. But none will get it. Hell, goforit won't even come back to the thread to show how government doesn't create jobs. I think his computer blew up. Or his head.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

Why thank you. But none will get it. Hell, goforit won't even come back to the thread to show how government doesn't create jobs. I think his computer blew up. Or his head.

You are probably right. He'll be on another thread making someone else explain it to him in another way. What you just told him is not up for dispute.

This economy requires demand. Demand is the only thing short of federal stimulus that can keep people working. If workers do not have money to spend.....there will be little demand. Subsistence level demand is what fuels third world economies. American workers need more than that level of income if this economy is to move forward.

Period.

 

[Geaux4it]

No, we are demonstrating to you that the Government does create jobs......millions of them

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

The government creates work, not jobs. It takes someone who is willing to take risk, make sacrifices that result in their ability to manifest jobs.

Yes, I did build that....

-Geaux

 

[rightwinger]

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

The government creates work, not jobs. It takes someone who is willing to take risk, make sacrifices that result in their ability to manifest jobs.

Yes, I did build that....

-Geaux

Double down on.......I don't know what I am talking about

 

[Geaux4it]

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

Why thank you. But none will get it. Hell, goforit won't even come back to the thread to show how government doesn't create jobs. I think his computer blew up. Or his head.

You are probably right. He'll be on another thread making someone else explain it to him in another way. What you just told him is not up for dispute.

This economy requires demand. Demand is the only thing short of federal stimulus that can keep people working. If workers do not have money to spend.....there will be little demand. Subsistence level demand is what fuels third world economies. American workers need more than that level of income if this economy is to move forward.

Period.

LMAO- Hey, you guys must not be getting enough of your Obama news, as you must of missed this one.

-Geaux

Jay Carney: “The White House doesn’t create jobs”
POSTED AT 4:48 PM ON AUGUST 4, 2011 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

“The White House doesn’t create jobs,” Carney said, adding “the government, together — White House, Congress — creates policies that allow for greater job creation.”

Jay Carney: ?The White House doesn?t create jobs? « Hot Air

 

[alan1]

Profits are up...what should we do?

1. Increase dividends......good idea
2. Raise the salary of the CEO......he deserves it
3. Increase employee pay......**** em

Become a CEO and change that practice.
Yer smart, what's holding you back?

So CEOs are only looking for the benefits of stockholders and themselves

As usual....the workers are fucked

The reason trickle down never works

Become a CEO and change that practice.
Yer smart, what's holding you back?

 

[alan1]

I'm for the right sized government and the right amount of taxes

the top 5% are paying 40% of the income taxes, the bottom 50% are paying nothing. Is that "fair" ?

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is that fair? They own, 90% of the wealth, seems to me, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

 

[rightwinger]

Become a CEO and change that practice.
Yer smart, what's holding you back?

So CEOs are only looking for the benefits of stockholders and themselves

As usual....the workers are fucked

The reason trickle down never works

Become a CEO and change that practice.
Yer smart, what's holding you back?

I don't need to become a CEO to do that. All I need to do is elect representatives that end corporate handouts and increase employee protections

 

[Geaux4it]

Progress eh? Implicit recognition that government does create jobs. Now you are worried about how many jobs they create and why they don't create more. Could it be that there is no money. And that cuts to government spending is the number one priority. Not jobs.

Of course the exact same question could be asked of all the corporations in the country.
Where are the jobs? Corporations have plenty of money with good earnings. So what is the one thing that private corporations DO NOT have that would require them to hire more workers? Demand for their goods or services is the answer.

In the private world, as demand goes up, hiring goes up.

In the government world, when private demand goes down and job growth slows, the government can order military equipment, infrastructure projects or R&D efforts for future needs. None of this is based on "demand for a product or service" but it still creates jobs.

Even though you will say it don't. But you know it does. You said so above.

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

Why thank you. But none will get it. Hell, goforit won't even come back to the thread to show how government doesn't create jobs. I think his computer blew up. Or his head.

The Fallacy That Government Creates Jobs

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/fallacy-government-creates-jobs

​

 

[Againsheila]

No, we are demonstrating to you that the Government does create jobs......millions of them

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

I would like to.....our infrastructure has been ignored for decades, we have not had a major public works job in a generation, our power grid is a disaster, so is our communications infrastructure.

Most of the bridges in our state are functionally obsolete, if they are not replaced soon, there will be another disaster.

 

[Againsheila]

the top 5% are paying 40% of the income taxes, the bottom 50% are paying nothing. Is that "fair" ?

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is that fair? They own, 90% of the wealth, seems to me, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

 

[Againsheila]

Outstanding. Will any nutter get it?

Why thank you. But none will get it. Hell, goforit won't even come back to the thread to show how government doesn't create jobs. I think his computer blew up. Or his head.

You are probably right. He'll be on another thread making someone else explain it to him in another way. What you just told him is not up for dispute.

This economy requires demand. Demand is the only thing short of federal stimulus that can keep people working. If workers do not have money to spend.....there will be little demand. Subsistence level demand is what fuels third world economies. American workers need more than that level of income if this economy is to move forward.

Period.

I didn't answer it at the time but the truth is, your video is full of it. Bill Gates isn't creating jobs anymore. He's making sure to save as much money as possible by bringing in foreign workers to replace American workers and shipping as many jobs out of the country as possible.

As for Steve Jobs, he's dead. He sold everything before he died.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is that fair? They own, 90% of the wealth, seems to me, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

Holy shit! Aside from the fear mongering WWIII shit......this nutter seems to be onto something. Do I see a few progressive hairs growing out of that noggin?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Then why don't they create millions more?

Problem solved

-Geaux

I would like to.....our infrastructure has been ignored for decades, we have not had a major public works job in a generation, our power grid is a disaster, so is our communications infrastructure.

Most of the bridges in our state are functionally obsolete, if they are not replaced soon, there will be another disaster.

So why has your state been sitting with their thumbs up their collective asses?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The top 10% own more wealth than the bottom 90% combined, is that fair? They own, 90% of the wealth, seems to me, they should be paying 90% of the taxes.

So, are you in favor of a wealth tax? As in, taxing people based upon their net worth or assets?

I'm in favor of changing our economy back to a 70% high tax bracket and having a strong middle class with minimum wage once again having the highest spending power in history. That's not gonna happen, we've already shipped too many factories overseas. In fact, if there is a WWIII, we are up a creek. No factories left to be refitted to make war machines. Nothing is made here so everything will be rationed worse than during WWII. Face it, shipping our jobs overseas and lowering taxes on the wealth and the corporations have led to the complete destruction of our country. We've been set up for WWIII and we've been set up to fail, only no one will be coming to our aid like we went to aid Europe.

And confiscatory tax rates will solve all of those "problems", correct?
Are YOU willing to surrender 70% of YOUR income to feed the government's insatiable desire to spend?
No? Thought so..
You ******* libs are so adept at spending other people's money.

 

[alan1]

Shareholders can't get by on less than $5b/yr?

lol.... do you not know how dumb that comment is? There is no "investor" who is getting $5 Billion.

That $5 Billion is divided up over millions of shares.

Each share, only got $1.39.

Shareholders can't get by on less than a $1.39? Well they could.... but they're not going to. I myself am a share holder in Walmart. Nearly all walmart employees are shareholders.

Why should I get paid less for my investment in Walmart? Who are you to say I should get less? Or the employees themselves, who are earning $1.39 for their shares. Why should walmart employees earn less for their shares?

It's not up to you, dude.

And even if it was, how much do you think we should earn from our shares? $5 Billion is only $1 dollar an hour to employees. What do you think it should be?

If you cut investors down to only 27¢ per share ($1 Billion to shareholders), we'll sue, and win. We have part ownership of the company, and we invested hundreds of billions into walmart, which is why they have 2.2 million jobs. We're not going to take only 27¢. Sorry. Not an option.

Looking at it another way,
As of close of Wall Street trading on Friday, WalMart stock was $76.01 per share. The dividend is listed at $1.92 which equates to a 2.50% return on investment if one owns stock. Not exactly a bad return, but if somebody owns 1000 shares of stock (a $76,010 investment) he only made $1,920 over the year for that investment. If the stock price and dividend remain constant, said investor can double is money in slightly under 40 years.
Chances are, the stock price and dividend will increase because if you aren't doubling your money every ten years or less, you're losing ground.