The Reality Of American's Personal Economics


BC1

,
Speaking of double speak, there's the typical republican double speak...
I stopped reading as soon as you made an unfounded generalization about republicans. Sorry. I think your pretty smart. But this thing isn't republican or democrat. The fight in Washington may be. But neither of these parties have had a passing relationship with their constituents in a very long time.
.
Being in NYS I have a lot of liberal friends. One hard-core liberal attorney (my best friend of 40 years), one trauma surgeon and one Chiropractor to be specific. Each are gun-toting libs. Thus, in upstate NY the gun thing isn't part of the liberal platform. But it is in NYC. When we consider the arguments made in these threads we must remember that opinions and viewpoints are both subjective (one's opinion based on experiences) and objective (where facts are clear and unbiased). We expect media outlets to act objectively but they don't. None of them do. And most people get their information from a media outlet. Rather than listen to what others claim to be objective I usually reserve my opinion to include subjective information; my own experiences. An that gets me into trouble. Someone says "cite your source" and my source is what I learned in grad school. So next I'm accused of acting superior because I have a great education. It's very hard to have a conversation here with all the adults.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
And here's the answer to that. It isn't higher tax or socialism. Those companies trade with China because American lawmakers make it legal to do so. Whn Obama had control of Congress he could have stopped it with the stroke of a pen. He could have raised import taxes to the point where American companies wouldn't have left in droves. Additionally, China manipulates it's currency. They pay their state workers at one rate and use another rate when selling to the stupid Americans. Yet Obama just signed another lopsided trade deal with them.
.
Walmart isn't a charity. They're a publicly traded corporation who's only goal is profit. They employ nearly 1.4 million Americans. That's above 1% of adults in America. Those employees choose to work there. Free will. They can always start a landscaping business if they don't like their job. If China was cutoff at the knees what would happen? America would see a rekindling of production of goods. Union wages and benefits would raise the costs of those products though. Retail prices would likely rise, but so would American's ability to afford them. And how many people who complain about Walmart own their stock either privately or through their 401K mutual fund? Obama could have fixed this and didn't. He had two years of unfettered access to Congress. Corporations currently hold over $18 trillion overseas. More than our entire deficit. As long as the threat of raising taxes exists, that $18 trillion will remain offshore. It won't go to corporate expansion projects, increased labor or wages. The constant threat of taxes holds spending and production down. Some companies, especially small business are making a 3% profit. Tell me where they'll get the money for higher wages AND higher taxes. Simply unattainable. I closed. In all, 19-20 employees and 16 contractors lost their job. Let Obama explain it to them.


These companies trade with China because THEY WANTED TO. They then went to the politicians, usually after a campaign donation, and tell them how great it would be to tap the enormous market in Asia. They say that it'll be great for America, we'll sell all these American goods to the Asians and will build more factories and hire more Americans. So barriers come down, but then phase two of the plan kicks in, well if the barriers are down does it matter if that product is made in the US or made in China? I can sell it for the same price in the US, but make it for half the price in China. And guess what? That's what they did. So don't blame the government, it was the corporate chase for profits that drove the outsourcing.

You think people chose to work at Walmart? Seriously? Like they aspire to that? They work at Walmart because Walmart came to town and put the hardware store, the grocery, the baker, the clothing store, etc, etc out of business and Walmart is the only job in town now. Also because they caused the factory to shut down because the work got outsourced to China.

And I disagree with you, I think Walmart certainly is a charity, I mean we pay $6.2 Billion for food stamps, medical care and housing for their employees.

As for Obama having two years of "unfettered access to Congress", the Republicans, when a minority, have threatened to filibuster Obama and the Democrats in the Senate more than twice than the historical norm:

109th (2005-2006) Senate when the Dems were the minority they threatened cloture 54 times.,
110th (2007- 2008) when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate they threatened cloture 112 times.
111th (2009-2010) when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate they threatened cloture 91 times
112th (2011-2012)when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate they threatened cloture 74 times
113th (2013-2014) when the Republicans were the minority in the Senate they threatened cloture 121 times in just the First Session!!!!
BTW the previous all time high for both sessions combined was 61 times.

So how much could Obama get done when the Republicans threaten filibuster on almost everything? So much for unfettered access.

Link Removed
 

maybejim

Maybejim
FACTNOTFICTION said:
if you were old and hadn't saved for old age, unless you had family to live with, you literally ended up in a poor house.
So in your mind treating everyone as if they were an irresponsible child is a good thing because it helped those who act as irresponsible children? You would give up liberty to take care of fools? Of course even worse the government solution was a Ponzi scheme that allowed my father to make out like a bandit, me to break about even (if I live long enough) and screws over my kids and grandkids. SS much like (and related to) the National Debt allows those today to live above their means while sending the bill to our grandkids.
 

BC1

,
So you made a nice living and provided a nice living for people because of your computer software business. Congrats! Thank the US government for that. The first real computer, there were one's with very limited abilities prior, was ENIAC, funded by the US Government to calculate artillery ballistics. Oh and did your software business make any money from writing code for E commerce? Well Thank DARPA, a US government program for creating the internet. Without funding from the government, none of those things were likely to happen mostly because private industry doesn't usually have the financial resources for that level of R&D. Private enterprise commits resources based on ROI, usually fairly short term, the government bases it on need. As it turns out most R&D that has a significant impact on society comes from government funding, most often though the military.

The government is basically a service provider and as our society has grown more and more complicated through technology, the scope of government has expanded. You didn't have an FAA 100 years ago, or NASA, or weather satellites, an FCC, etc, etc, etc. As new technologies come around, new problems related to them come about, just look at cyber attacks and computer hacking, new problems create new departments to deal with them. That's just the way it is, and the more complex the technology and it's related problems, the more regulation is required to keep things from going haywire. Would you ever knowingly fly on a plane not FAA certified? Would you knowingly eat at a restaurant where the food handlers were not required to wash their hands after they use the bathroom?

When I lived in NY my property taxes were $24k, most of which was school taxes, and I don't even have kids. But then again I went to public school and got a pretty decent education, for free, my parents like many in NYC were renters, so I'm just paying it back.

As for all those little taxes, most of which are fees, they are a la carte items, you only pay the watercraft fee if you have a watercraft, most of those fees are because they have to keep records of things, like marriages, and have to maintain them indefinitely. That requires some staff and some facilities. As for Social Security, workers comp, and medicare, those are basically pension or insurance policies. And while mandatory have changed for the better the quality of life for most Americans as they age, get injured or get sick. Prior to SS, if you were old and hadn't saved for old age, unless you had family to live with, you literally ended up in a poor house. And while in rural areas most often old people would live with their kids, in the rapidly growing urban areas, that was often not an option. You can call it nanny state, but it exists because there are plenty of irresponsible people out there who need a grown up making decisions for them because they create problems for the rest of us. The problem with most programs and laws is that they exist for the few idiots out there with no common sense.
Oh, Jesus Christ here we go again. Another person going back decades. Want to re-argue the civil war for reparations? Call Sharpton if you do.
.
The first statement is directly from kahuna and Liz Warren. I know Elizabeth Warren personally; since the late 90's. Don't go quoting her to me. We had much discussion over the impact of large medical bills on bankruptcy. I also paid horrific taxes for all those things. What about Flacko? He deals drugs, doesn't work, gets entitlements, he pays no taxes but drives on our roads. Where's his obligation under Elizabeth Warren's social contract. He has no obligation to contribute?
.
Did I make money from ecommerce? Yes. Before there was an Internet there was ecommerce. It worked on dialup, T3, T1 and fractional communications, all built by private network and communication companies. I was part of that in the 80's. My company made it's bones designing the switch networks that control the national ATM networks (NYCE, PULSE and STAR). Before our work one could only use an ATM owned/local to their own bank. After our work your ATM withdrawal could be made from any bank by routing a non-local transaction to the switch network where it would reroute to your bank. Your bank responded with an approval or denial for the withdrawal which went back to the switch network and then back to the ATM you're using. All in 30 seconds and secured. I worked closely with EDS and Perot Systems (Ross Perot's companies), along with Key Services, IBM and Sears Discovery. DARPA had nothing to with it. This was built long before the Internet was a gleam in its daddy's eye. Your age is showing. I been around the tech industry since the late 70's, long before the PC or Internet.
.
You're also partly wrong saying most R&D comes from the government. While a lot of it does, the big, ineffective, slow, cumbersome government needs to get out of the way and let the pros do it. In today's tech world the R&D that comprises the backbone of today's systems came from Intel and 3M. Networking comes from CISCO and many others. The government's role is old news here. No part of the technology of 1940 is in use anymore. We don't use punch cards and CPU's don't operate on magnetized ferrous rings. Read about Moore's Law and Metcalf's Law. It's great stuff. It talks about the exponential growth in computing power that a single dollar can buy and how often that doubles. None of it is based in government R&D. Same with drugs. R&D is done by big pharma. And your 401K likely holds stocks in all these companies.
.
Social Security isn't an entitlement. You paid into it your entire life. It's your money. But I would much rather have had that money in my investment portfolio than having paid it in FICA. Most American's 401K's have outpaced SS. But that's not for everyone. Some people wouldn't know how to invest it. But Medicare? Ever see Medicare Part D? You can have $2,900 in prescription meds in 2015. Each time you pick-up your meds they don't apply the copay cost to your yearly amount, they apply the retail cost of the drug. A retired person who paid into SS his entire life can now get a few months medication before he hits the doughnut hole. Know who doesn't have that problem? Flacko the drug dealer. He has no annual Medicaid cap. His co-pays are $1.
.
I have no problem with generous aid to those in need. The truly poor, the elderly, sick, children, persons who suffer a tragedy, etc. MY ONLY objection has been "Flacko" the dealer and "baby mama." And there's a lot of Flackos and baby mamas out there who are working the system... working you and I. I resent them. As long as they're healthy, if they want a check they can show-up on Monday to help resurface a local highway. Anyone object to that?
 

BC1

,
THERE IT IS!!!! Now tell me BC, what was that argument you were making a little bit ago in another thread, about how you shouldn't have to move because you grew up in NY? Why is it good for Walmart Employees to choose to get a different job (if that is an option for them, which it may not be) but it's not good enough for you to move if you don't like the property or state taxes where you live? Can you tell me?


Please I would really like to know why it's NOT OKAY to suggest that you move if you don't like your property taxes (even though you should easily have the resources to do so if you have as much as you claim) when YOU b!tch? But, it's OKAY for you to say that the working poor at Walmart, who have far fewer resources or choices than you, can choose to get a different job. I REALLY WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THAT'S OK!?!
Apples and oranges. poor comparison. One doesn't close a business, sell five income properties, sell their own home and move to another state without massive costs. It's not as easy as getting a better job. It would take me years to tie-up my affairs and leave. Besides, too many people depend on me. I take care of nieces, nephews, kids, aunts, siblings and parents. I can't just dump them.
.
But if I needed a better paying job? I would beat the streets like a red-headed stepson to improve my situation. That's how one becomes successful. I would study a trade or take classes. There's even support from the state VESID services for them to do it. They don't try. They complain instead about what others have. Stop asking what your country can do for you.
 

BC1

,
These companies trade with China because THEY WANTED TO.
Then your argument isn't here. Perhaps a letter to your Congressional rep would be better. Tell them you want to stop sending jobs overseas and importing all our goods. I'm on board with you.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
So in your mind treating everyone as if they were an irresponsible child is a good thing because it helped those who act as irresponsible children? You would give up liberty to take care of fools? Of course even worse the government solution was a Ponzi scheme that allowed my father to make out like a bandit, me to break about even (if I live long enough) and screws over my kids and grandkids. SS much like (and related to) the National Debt allows those today to live above their means while sending the bill to our grandkids.


Who's giving up liberty? I don't like taking care of fools, I've led a very responsible life, but if you don't take care of fools they bring all of us down. But then again there are a great many Americans who work hard and just don't make enough money to survive properly or don't have enough money to save for retirement. Plus what will these people do even if they had some money? How many people know how to set up a proper retirement account or investment portfolio? My wife is a Wall St analyst and we still lost about a million in 2008, (got most of it back already) and I know a fair number of Wall streeters who were nearly wiped out.
.
SS was an independent and a very solvent entity before Reagan started borrowing from it and replacing the money with an IOU.
As for sending the bills to the grandkids, that didn't seem to cross the minds of conservatives when they tripled the deficit under Reagan and doubled it under Bush.
.
Seriously I think there are two kinds of people, those who have concern for others, and those who only care for themselves. And maybe that's just what it comes down to.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Then your argument isn't here. Perhaps a letter to your Congressional rep would be better. Tell them you want to stop sending jobs overseas and importing all our goods. I'm on board with you.


It's futile. We can write our reps, but they'll get big fat checks from corporations and do what they're told. And thanks to Citizens United it's going to get far worse. Personally I'd make a Congressman a 4 year term with no re-election, a Senator and president a single term limited to 6 years. And I'd use public funding for campaigns, no private money. Further, like the Australians, I'd require that everyone vote and make it easier for them to vote. And while some might say forcing people to vote is taking away their freedom don't forget people have died to protect that right, voting isn't a privilege it's a responsibility.

America is no longer the democratic Republic it once was, it's becoming an oligarchy. The super wealthy and the major corporations call the shots. The Kochs are spending $850 million on the 2016 elections. Think they're not looking to buy some influence? Just look how the government went out of the way in the 2000's to accommodate Wall st and the Mortgage Backed Securities market. It's not like there weren't people saying this was going to be a disaster, but their voices carried no weight. there was just too much money to be made. You'd have thought after the S&L crisis under Reagan that they'd have learned. And after they cause the loss of 30% of Americas wealth in 2008, they get bailed out. And the new laws that we attempted to impose to prevent this from happening again, are getting so watered down as to be non existent. Money rules America, and the big corps and the rich have most of it. At some point the inequality in this country is going to explode, and the mobs with torches and pitchforks will be coming. It's happened countless times before.

BTW, out of principle I have never shopped at a Walmart. I think they have done more harm to America than our worst enemies have.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
Apples and oranges. poor comparison. One doesn't close a business, sell five income properties, sell their own home and move to another state without massive costs. It's not as easy as getting a better job. It would take me years to tie-up my affairs and leave. Besides, too many people depend on me. I take care of nieces, nephews, kids, aunts, siblings and parents. I can't just dump them.
.
But if I needed a better paying job? I would beat the streets like a red-headed stepson to improve my situation. That's how one becomes successful. I would study a trade or take classes. There's even support from the state VESID services for them to do it. They don't try. They complain instead about what others have. Stop asking what your country can do for you.


BC, if you're a 50 yo without a degree, let alone an advanced degree, and your employment background consisted of factory or retail work, you're out of luck. Most of the long term unemployed are older people lacking modern job skills, and even if they go back to school they are competing with younger people with modern jobs skills and more energy who can also afford to work for less.

I started and ran a business successfully for a long time but If I had to find work out of my field I'd be screwed.
 

billt

Banned
So you made a nice living and provided a nice living for people because of your computer software business. Congrats! Thank the US government for that.

At the risk of sounding like Robert DeNiro in "Goodfellas",................. What did I tell you?........... WHAT DID I TELL YOU?
 

maybejim

Maybejim
It's a shame that we have those who think that they must dictate to everyone else because they, the dictators know what's best. It's pretty clear that people who are given things don't appreciate it and only want more to be given to them. The truly needy should get help but the government is not capable of separating the truly needy and the bums.
 

BC1

,
BC, if you're a 50 yo without a degree, let alone an advanced degree, and your employment background consisted of factory or retail work, you're out of luck. Most of the long term unemployed are older people lacking modern job skills, and even if they go back to school they are competing with younger people with modern jobs skills and more energy who can also afford to work for less.

I started and ran a business successfully for a long time but If I had to find work out of my field I'd be screwed.
That's true in most cases. Some companies like Lowe's and HD like the older worker. So do I. He has an ethic that many youngsters lack. But we can't force affirmative action on companies. If we mandate they have X number of seniors, X number of Hispanic, etc., we've interfered with their ability to run their business. I hired people based on experience. Didn't mater what color or race. I wanted the best person I could find.
 

jrs

New member
You're also partly wrong saying most R&D comes from the government. While a lot of it does, the big, ineffective, slow, cumbersome government needs to get out of the way and let the pros do it. In today's tech world the R&D that comprises the backbone of today's systems came from Intel and 3M. Networking comes from CISCO and many others. The government's role is old news here. None of it is based in government R&D. Same with drugs. R&D is done by big pharma. And your 401K likely holds stocks in all these companies.

I have no problem with generous aid to those in need. The truly poor, the elderly, sick, children, persons who suffer a tragedy, etc.

BC, you are absolutely correct. Having spent a number of years in the 1990's with 3M, I can attest to the lack of Big Governments contribution to innovation. Companies like 3M succeed DESPITE government.... They had a saying within the company that "80% of the products we sell in 5 years have not yet been invented". They have come up with so many products that are in use today that were developed and found a market based on their utility....not because the Government thought of it and demanded it.....although many of their innovations were then marketed to various governments (ei: reflective materials marketed to government for use in signage and road markings, etc).

Switching gears here, it seems that all of FactsNotFiction's (and all of Liberalism's)arguments are based on one false premise.... 'in order for one person to become wealthy, another must lose wealth'. That's the downfall of the minimum wage argument. Supply and demand dictate wages. If you don't want to make $7 per hour, you have the choice of going somewhere else, not accepting $7 per hour. Once the supply of $7 workers runs out, those businesses will pay more than $7. The difference is... some workers look at the $7 job as a starting point, while others look at it as a lifelong job... then complain that they can't pay a mortgage on that wage.

Your choices have brought you to where you are today... YOU chose to graduate high school or college, affecting your earnings potential.... YOU chose to learn a trade (plumber/electrician,etc) or to throw garbage cans or shovel dirt for the municipality...YOU chose to take on high debt limiting your ability to leave a dead-end job and take the risk to start your own business or take a job with higher long term potential, but slightly lower immediate pay.

Liberals always look to Walmart.... but the Walton family didn't start their business with thousands of locations and employees, thousands of trucks for distribution, great financial wealth from which to draw. NO, they started the same way as any other small business. They saw a demand, they met it, more people showed interest in buying the products they sold and likely asked for more product selection... they met that and GREW their small business, and grew and grew and grew. They BUILT their business... the government didn't hand it to them, didn't subsidize them so they would be successful. I would venture to guess that the various governments would MISS their enormous TAX DOLLARS... but it's the same governments who like to demonize them in the name of class warfare to garner votes.

The beauty of Capitalism is that there are no limits to what an individual or entity can do. Of course, this requires risk. The ones who risk the most tend to reap the highest rewards.... that would be the successful business owners. It is the risk takers that built this country. It was private companies that built railroads to access and develop the west. It was private companies or individuals that believed that man could fly, invented the internal combustion engine, invented the telephone, transmission and use of AC and DC electrical current, etc, etc, etc..... It wasn't the Government who said..."Gee, I wish we could move people through the air faster than on land, get someone on that!" It was innovators and visionaries who invented it, then, and only then, did the government see that there may be applications which would benefit the public.

The upshot of all of this is that the Liberal Government has become an albatross around the neck of progress, both business and personal... They tout the "low" unemployment rate, but the US has the lowest employment participation rate in modern history. They say we need more tax dollars and that the tax rate should be raised, but fail to see that their policies hold us back. The tax rate on $$$ being held outside the US is preventing those funds returning to the US... Just think of the jobs that would be created with that capital in the economy. Fir instance, Canada, many years ago lowered their tax rate and saw a huge influx if capital back into their economy. Even as far back as the 1960's, JFK understood and stated that lower tax rates would increase tax revenue. He'd be drummed out of the Democrat party today. Reagan lowered the tax rates....voila...increased revenue. They were both of the opinion that a rising tide raises all ships. Unfortunately, for current day Liberals/Progressives, for the country to succeed, the job creators MUST BE PUNISHED!

Government needs to get back to it's original intent... National Defense.. and to provide a "safety net" for those truly in need. We should once again become the "land of opportunity"... there's no guarantees in life or business.
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
At the risk of sounding like Robert DeNiro in "Goodfellas",................. What did I tell you?........... WHAT DID I TELL YOU?

Of course you cherry pick what you want out of context. BC has had a career in computing, if the government hadn't funded the ENIAC or the internet he might not have had that career. How come that is hard for you to understand?
 

FactsNotFiction

New member
BC, you are absolutely correct. Having spent a number of years in the 1990's with 3M, I can attest to the lack of Big Governments contribution to innovation. Companies like 3M succeed DESPITE government.... They had a saying within the company that "80% of the products we sell in 5 years have not yet been invented". They have come up with so many products that are in use today that were developed and found a market based on their utility....not because the Government thought of it and demanded it.....although many of their innovations were then marketed to various governments (ei: reflective materials marketed to government for use in signage and road markings, etc).

Switching gears here, it seems that all of FactsNotFiction's (and all of Liberalism's)arguments are based on one false premise.... 'in order for one person to become wealthy, another must lose wealth'. That's the downfall of the minimum wage argument. Supply and demand dictate wages. If you don't want to make $7 per hour, you have the choice of going somewhere else, not accepting $7 per hour. Once the supply of $7 workers runs out, those businesses will pay more than $7. The difference is... some workers look at the $7 job as a starting point, while others look at it as a lifelong job... then complain that they can't pay a mortgage on that wage.

Your choices have brought you to where you are today... YOU chose to graduate high school or college, affecting your earnings potential.... YOU chose to learn a trade (plumber/electrician,etc) or to throw garbage cans or shovel dirt for the municipality...YOU chose to take on high debt limiting your ability to leave a dead-end job and take the risk to start your own business or take a job with higher long term potential, but slightly lower immediate pay.

Liberals always look to Walmart.... but the Walton family didn't start their business with thousands of locations and employees, thousands of trucks for distribution, great financial wealth from which to draw. NO, they started the same way as any other small business. They saw a demand, they met it, more people showed interest in buying the products they sold and likely asked for more product selection... they met that and GREW their small business, and grew and grew and grew. They BUILT their business... the government didn't hand it to them, didn't subsidize them so they would be successful. I would venture to guess that the various governments would MISS their enormous TAX DOLLARS... but it's the same governments who like to demonize them in the name of class warfare to garner votes.

The beauty of Capitalism is that there are no limits to what an individual or entity can do. Of course, this requires risk. The ones who risk the most tend to reap the highest rewards.... that would be the successful business owners. It is the risk takers that built this country. It was private companies that built railroads to access and develop the west. It was private companies or individuals that believed that man could fly, invented the internal combustion engine, invented the telephone, transmission and use of AC and DC electrical current, etc, etc, etc..... It wasn't the Government who said..."Gee, I wish we could move people through the air faster than on land, get someone on that!" It was innovators and visionaries who invented it, then, and only then, did the government see that there may be applications which would benefit the public.

The upshot of all of this is that the Liberal Government has become an albatross around the neck of progress, both business and personal... They tout the "low" unemployment rate, but the US has the lowest employment participation rate in modern history. They say we need more tax dollars and that the tax rate should be raised, but fail to see that their policies hold us back. The tax rate on $$$ being held outside the US is preventing those funds returning to the US... Just think of the jobs that would be created with that capital in the economy. Fir instance, Canada, many years ago lowered their tax rate and saw a huge influx if capital back into their economy. Even as far back as the 1960's, JFK understood and stated that lower tax rates would increase tax revenue. He'd be drummed out of the Democrat party today. Reagan lowered the tax rates....voila...increased revenue. They were both of the opinion that a rising tide raises all ships. Unfortunately, for current day Liberals/Progressives, for the country to succeed, the job creators MUST BE PUNISHED!

Government needs to get back to it's original intent... National Defense.. and to provide a "safety net" for those truly in need. We should once again become the "land of opportunity"... there's no guarantees in life or business.

Companies do research usually based on the notion of producing a commercial product and while advances do come from private R&D it is the government who funds the big long term that does not have have immediate financial returns but tends to advance technology in huge waves. Look at the Human Genome project, Atomic research in the 1940's though the 1960's, NASA and space technology, the internet, computers. 33% of drug research is funded by the Federal government.
The biggest source of funding for science and medical research at the countries universities comes from the government.
.

Your premise of my view being,"in order for one person to become wealthy, another must lose wealth" is not even close. I have no problem with people getting rich, by some people's standards I'm rich, although compared to rich people I'm not, however unlike some of you I believe that I don't need to have all the money on the table, and that by my having all the money I'll live a better life. I believe there's plenty to go around, and while the Waltons have $147 Billion, earned by their million employees for them, the Walton's should not require the US taxpayer to pay $6.2 billion annually to support their employees because they are grossly underpaid.

And BTW do you know what one of Walmart's biggest profit sources is? Food Stamps!! Half of Walmart's sales are from groceries. 18% of all food stamp sales in the US is at Walmart, some $13.5 Billion. And given that the US taxpayer provides Walmart's employees with food stamps, and those employees in return buy their food at Walmart using those same food stamps, quite a nice deal for Walmart. In fact when the Republicans cut food stamps, Walmart's earnings dropped and Walmart attributed it to a reduction in food stamp sales.

Understand something about business. Walmart is replaceable. Their customers are not. If Walmart disappeared tomorrow, a thousand businesses would form to fill the need. However if the customers stopped coming to Walmart, Walmart would disappear fast and it's employees would just go to work for all those new businesses that replaced Walmart. So who really is the job creator? Walmart or the consumer? If the consumer has money, they spend it, they grow the economy, when they don't spend it, the economy comes to a halt. Demand creates a business, not supply. The more people that can afford a product the greater the potential sales of that product. Reagan's trickle down economics just didn't. The notion of cutting taxes on the rich would grow the economy was clearly blown out of the water in 2008 and we have the doubled deficit from that as well. A few people getting rich does not better the economy compared to everyone else moving up a bit. 3 million millionaires buying Ferraris doesn't grow the economy even remotely as well as 300 million people buying Chevy's.
.
And let's be quite clear about Conservative economic policy versus liberal economic policy. Under a Democratic president the GDP grows more, unemployment is lower, the stock market does better, the middle class does better and the deficit grows slower. Historically under a Democratic president the stock market has a 15.31% ROI, under a Republican a 5.47%

As for "job creators must be punished" I started a business from scratch, I employed people, I was a job creator. Did you create a business form scratch and actually create jobs? Also I am assuming, based on statistics, but it is most likely that you are not in the top 1% income and tax bracket, I am, why should you care if I pay more taxes?
 

MI .45

MI .45
As for "job creators must be punished" I started a business from scratch, I employed people, I was a job creator. Did you create a business form scratch and actually create jobs? Also I am assuming, based on statistics, but it is most likely that you are not in the top 1% income and tax bracket, I am, why should you care if I pay more taxes?

But, remember FNF... July 2012 - Barack Obama declared: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.” So you sir, according to the President you seem to so admire - YOU didn't do jack.

And lets stay away from the "out of context" thing... his campaign had to "clarify" twice.

Update, July 24, 2012: After we posted this item, the Obama campaign said the president was referring to the construction of roads and bridges when he said “you didn’t build that.” (Again, the president said: “Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that.”) The campaign also posted a new Web video in which the narrator says, “Actually, he was talking about building ‘infrastructure and education’ … ‘not that individuals don’t build their businesses.’ ” We don’t know what the president had in mind when he uttered those words, and his intent is not clear. Regardless, our conclusion is the same: Taking snippets of his speech ignores the larger context of the president’s meaning that a business owner does not become successful “on your own.” Eugene Kiley - FactCheck.Org
 

BluesStringer

Les Brers
So you made a nice living and provided a nice living for people because of your computer software business. Congrats! Thank the US government for that.

Oh. My. Gawd. Not many on a gun forum are going to read past that idiocy. I sure as Hell didn't. You could've probably counted the number of Elizabeth Warren/ Obammunist type voters around here on one hand before you, Gregmm6, and GrayMatterLacking got here. The above bold text proves that you came here for no other reason than to stir the pot, knowing before your first post that you'd never be welcomed by the overwhelming majority of the membership. What a miserable life you must have if the only way you can get off is by throwing reams of unwanted and unsolicited far-left lunacy in the collective face of a largely conservative/libertarian group, which itself is a strained co-existence to begin with. Ahh, but that's the goal, isn't it? Come here and sew seeds of discontent and distract all the "gun-nuts" from the issues that matter to us.

I've never been anywhere near rich, but anybody would be hard-pressed to find a single post/paragraph/sentence/word or friggin' punctuation mark that exudes a scintilla of wealth-envy for those who are, while that one sentence (and many that preceded it) in bold above oozes and drips of it. You don't fool anybody here. No leftist ever lived who really believed that a country could tax itself into prosperity. You don't care about the middle class or the working class or whatever the catch-phrase slogan today is, you care about the government class, a full-on oligarchy, overtaking and smothering out of existence the Constitution and the self-reliant, self-responsible mindset of The People that, maybe only for a very brief stitch in time, made this country great. It sure as Hell never was government that made it great, but here you are pushin' for that happenstance with every disgusting leftist meme you promulgate.

You may succeed in driving people away, but your ideology will never succeed in changing the minds of gun owners why it's important to remain well-prepared gun owners. In fact, you reinforce those reasons every time you spew another leftist screed. And that goes for the rest of the few leftists that come here for no other reason than to stir the pot too.

Blues
 

billt

Banned
Of course you cherry pick what you want out of context. BC has had a career in computing, if the government hadn't funded the ENIAC or the internet he might not have had that career. How come that is hard for you to understand?

I'm sure human creativity, production, and business profitability would just come to a screeching halt without the government. It must be why Steve Jobs died penniless. :rolleyes:
 

GryHounnd

Banned
I'm sure human creativity, production, and business profitability would just come to a screeching halt without the government. It must be why Steve Jobs died penniless. :rolleyes:

A lot of business seemed to grind to a screeching halt when banks stopped lending to each other and everyone else . They were certainly eager to rely on government then. Bottom line is business depends on government like government depends on business. It's a mutually parasitic relationship.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using USA Carry mobile app
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,435
Messages
623,611
Members
74,269
Latest member
NearshoreRnD
Top