sndsgood wrote:not to mentionon what quick said, but we dont need people going out and buying a dinner out as much as we need major corporations to start developing again. people are pulling out of jobs half way thru. walking onto a multi million dollar hospital job and just saying, go home were not going to build it now. you need to get the money at the top moving again, instead they are holding onto it to see what happens.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:not to mentionon what quick said, but we dont need people going out and buying a dinner out as much as we need major corporations to start developing again. people are pulling out of jobs half way thru. walking onto a multi million dollar hospital job and just saying, go home were not going to build it now. you need to get the money at the top moving again, instead they are holding onto it to see what happens.
False.
We (do) need people going out buying dinner. That is part of economy, no one buys, no movement. This notion that "money on the top moving" is not going to do shit. Simple economics, if there is no demand, why build, why open more jobs? For what, so it can be stocked in store shelfs or dealer lots?
Since the large portion of people are in the middle and low income, thats where the money needs to be moving. Money flows, means demand is created, demand brings wanted ads on Sunday's paper.
If that waiter/ waitress has no clientele, how do you think he/she will replace that 15 year old oven? I can guarantee that the top will not buy it for him/ her.
Quote:
While your statement about businesses needing patrons is true, so is the fact that the companies need the relief of taxes even more. It doesn't matter how much business comes in if the costs of doing that business keep increasing. It will still result in cut backs and layoffs.
Quote:
People as a whole simply do not have enough disposable income right now for consumer confidence to make the difference in the economy. It is in business where the difference will be made, and this administration is making that difference a negative one. Not only in their vilification of "evil Corporate America", but in real cost increases.
Quote:
that stimulus checks to the average person do not work, and that taxing the rich and redistributing it does not work, but that real tax cuts for businesses works.
Quote:More so then what already has happened since the turn of the century?
The things being proposed right now will destroy this country's business, and cause numerous companies to go out of business, or move their entire company out of the US.
Quote:
The average person needs to realize that all of the class envy, class warfare, and corporate hatred are going to hurt this country more than anything. They are contrivances for the sole purpose of advancing an agenda. If there weren't groups to vilify, and groups to victimize, the liberal agenda would not move forward.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
While your statement about businesses needing patrons is true, so is the fact that the companies need the relief of taxes even more. It doesn't matter how much business comes in if the costs of doing that business keep increasing. It will still result in cut backs and layoffs.
False. That is a (wealthy) right wing or (wealthy) Conservative Liberals conspiracy. Or better yet an "ol' wife's tale."
Quiklilcav wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Quote:
While your statement about businesses needing patrons is true, so is the fact that the companies need the relief of taxes even more. It doesn't matter how much business comes in if the costs of doing that business keep increasing. It will still result in cut backs and layoffs.
False. That is a (wealthy) right wing or (wealthy) Conservative Liberals conspiracy. Or better yet an "ol' wife's tale."
You speak of things you have no business speaking about. What I said is 100% truth, and I can say this because I've not only worked in, but managed, enough businesses in multiple industries, to know this. How much management or business experience do you have? How many employees have you ever managed?
You have no concept of economics. You have been drinking up the liberal kool-ade so long that you can't fathom how true conservatism works for everyone. You are part of the anti-rich, anti-corporate mindset. I don't care what you label yourself. Your bias is obvious. You believe in a punitive, anti-incentive tax plans that do absolutely nothing for growth. Somehow you are convinced that it actually helps growth, but you can not argue with history. Whenever taxes were kept low on businesses, unemployment numbers were low, and growth was high. Whenever taxes get increased on the upper brackets and businesses, the economy has, at best, become stagnant.
Do you realize that many of the Bush years were quite good economically? The fear mongering of a recession began before any actual decline in the economy took place. Unemployment numbers were low, and business growth was happening country wide, and the stock market was up, yet the Democrats were talking about decline in the economy, and this was just two years ago. Why? Because the elections were coming up, and if they could convince everyone (which they did) that the economy was declining, they could run against Bush not just on the war, but also on the economy.
One thing you refuse to accept, and your only answer is to pick one little thing out, twist it, and keep bashing it (companies moving over seas because of tax incentives to do so), is that Capitalism in it's pure form, works, and works extremely well. It is when the government has stepped in and tried to manipulate it, no matter how noble the cause might be, that things go south. Funny, the way you twist one thing, keep saying it over and over again, I'd think you were part of the media. Oh, look, you are! LOL. Silly me.
As to why the tax breaks work, as I explained in my previous post, it's two-fold: they stop cutbacks and layoffs, and they allow the drop of price (which, contrary to your belief, actually happens) to encourage more sales, which spurs growth.
You are the perfect example of the statement I made at the bottom of my last post. You engage 100% in class warfare and corporate hatred. What you and everyone else who subscribes to this bullsh!t need to understand is that the corporations will stop putting up with this, and leave, and then there will be even less jobs, less money in the tax coffers to hand out to the leeches of society. Then there will be no choice but to start going into the lower classes and taking their money, because "someone has to pay it." You can not argue with the fact that 90% of tax dollars are paid by approximately 10% of the people, and if you bash that 10% long enough, and keep trying to take more and more of their money, they'll eventually say "f&%k you" and leave.
Stop trying to spread your hatred and class envy.
shiZblam wrote:Talk about drinking the kool-aid...
Your posts are so slanted I've stopped reading them all together.
Quote:
the sooner people will get off of their lazy asses and do what they need to do to take care of themselves first. There are far too many people who think 'The American Dream' just happens -- that it's just a byproduct of living here. The American Dream is about working hard to get your share...
shiZblam wrote:the sooner people will get off of their lazy asses and do what they need to do to take care of themselves first. There are far too many people who think 'The American Dream' just happens -- that it's just a byproduct of living here. The American Dream is about working hard to get your share...
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:not to mentionon what quick said, but we dont need people going out and buying a dinner out as much as we need major corporations to start developing again. people are pulling out of jobs half way thru. walking onto a multi million dollar hospital job and just saying, go home were not going to build it now. you need to get the money at the top moving again, instead they are holding onto it to see what happens.
False.
We (do) need people going out buying dinner. That is part of economy, no one buys, no movement. This notion that "money on the top moving" is not going to do shit. Simple economics, if there is no demand, why build, why open more jobs? For what, so it can be stocked in store shelfs or dealer lots?
Since the large portion of people are in the middle and low income, thats where the money needs to be moving. Money flows, means demand is created, demand brings wanted ads on Sunday's paper.
If that waiter/ waitress has no clientele, how do you think he/she will replace that 15 year old oven? I can guarantee that the top will not buy it for him/ her.
sndsgood wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:sndsgood wrote:not to mentionon what quick said, but we dont need people going out and buying a dinner out as much as we need major corporations to start developing again. people are pulling out of jobs half way thru. walking onto a multi million dollar hospital job and just saying, go home were not going to build it now. you need to get the money at the top moving again, instead they are holding onto it to see what happens.
False.
We (do) need people going out buying dinner. That is part of economy, no one buys, no movement. This notion that "money on the top moving" is not going to do shit. Simple economics, if there is no demand, why build, why open more jobs? For what, so it can be stocked in store shelfs or dealer lots?
Since the large portion of people are in the middle and low income, thats where the money needs to be moving. Money flows, means demand is created, demand brings wanted ads on Sunday's paper.
If that waiter/ waitress has no clientele, how do you think he/she will replace that 15 year old oven? I can guarantee that the top will not buy it for him/ her.
so what your saying is its the chicken versus the egg. you need a job to go out to dinner, u need someone to eat to have a reseraunt. whos is going to be the one to go first. the person with no job going out to buy dinner with money they dont have? or the corporations to open their pocketbooks with the money they do have to create jobs so people can have money to buy a dinner???
sndsgood wrote:so i choose the chicken because the egg cant eat without money. to get money it needs a job. the chicken who has the money can open the business to hire the egg to give it money to buy the goods.
Quiklilcav wrote:sndsgood wrote:so i choose the chicken because the egg cant eat without money. to get money it needs a job. the chicken who has the money can open the business to hire the egg to give it money to buy the goods.
And where does that chicken get the money to hire the egg when the government is taking more and more of it's money to give out to the eggs who don't work?
sndsgood wrote:so i choose the chicken because the egg cant eat without money. to get money it needs a job. the chicken who has the money can open the business to hire the egg to give it money to buy the goods.
sndsgood wrote:your right they are dependant, but if you have a person with no money, (unemployed person) and a person with money that can start a company to make a job for the unemployed person to work at, then you have a solution to the problem. taxing the person with the money is not going to help the situation. now the person with the money just holds onto his money instead of starting that company. so the company doesnt get built and the unemployed person stays unemployed.