Another Liberal Myth Exploded

[Brain357]

No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

Still dodging the question? How sad. If you truly believe lots of inequality doesn't slow the economy than answer the question.

I answered your question, Princess (So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?) and I don't take marching orders from whiny socialists.

Actually I'm quite fiscally conservative. I want a strong economy, it is good for everyone. Have you noticed the economy has been slow as this inequality grows? I guess since you won't answer the question you don't even believe the crap you are saying.

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

I know exactly what I am. You seem to think the capitalism is about lots of inequality. That's really not what it is supposed to be about. And you answered some other question. There were two possible answers based on he question and you gave neither. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

 

[TemplarKormac]

For those of you thinking CEO's earn too much, just remember, if you ever became the CEO of anything, you'll be the very thing you hate. Rich.

I'd rather not exploit others.

North Korea is calling your name, friend.

 

[SAYIT]

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

I know exactly what I am. You seem to think the capitalism is about lots of inequality. That's really not what it is supposed to be about...

Nope. I believe capitalism is about lots of opportunity and lots of hard working people striving to build a better mousetrap.

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

And you answered some other question. There were two possible answers based on he question and you gave neither. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Obviously there is at least one more answer to your question and I provided it. You don't have to like it but it's all the answer you are gonna get:

Your Q: No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

My A: Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

I know exactly what I am. You seem to think the capitalism is about lots of inequality. That's really not what it is supposed to be about...

Nope. I believe capitalism is about lots of opportunity and lots of hard working people striving to build a better mousetrap.

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

And you answered some other question. There were two possible answers based on he question and you gave neither. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Obviously there is at least one more answer to your question and I provided it. You don't have to like it but it's all the answer you are gonna get:

Your Q: No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

My A: Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

I understand you are scared to answer. It shows how little you know. I'll answer it for you. It is much better to have 500 people making good money than one person making gross amounts of money. When we have a few people making gross amounts of money and lots making little the economy is slow. See our current economy for evidence.

Was Henry Ford a capitalist?

 

[SAYIT]

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

I know exactly what I am. You seem to think the capitalism is about lots of inequality. That's really not what it is supposed to be about...

Nope. I believe capitalism is about lots of opportunity and lots of hard working people striving to build a better mousetrap.

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

And you answered some other question. There were two possible answers based on he question and you gave neither. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Obviously there is at least one more answer to your question and I provided it. You don't have to like it but it's all the answer you are gonna get:

Your Q: No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

My A: Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

I understand you are scared to answer. It shows how little you know. I'll answer it for you. It is much better to have 500 people making good money than one person making gross amounts of money.

Of course, the choices you offered weren't the only viable options (and my answer proved that) but rather were all your limited intelligence could muster. I get that.

 

[Brain357]

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

I know exactly what I am. You seem to think the capitalism is about lots of inequality. That's really not what it is supposed to be about...

Nope. I believe capitalism is about lots of opportunity and lots of hard working people striving to build a better mousetrap.

I don't believe you know what you are and I answered your question ... you just can't do anything with the answer.

And you answered some other question. There were two possible answers based on he question and you gave neither. Do you have a problem with reading comprehension?

Obviously there is at least one more answer to your question and I provided it. You don't have to like it but it's all the answer you are gonna get:

Your Q: No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

My A: Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

I understand you are scared to answer. It shows how little you know. I'll answer it for you. It is much better to have 500 people making good money than one person making gross amounts of money.

Of course, the choices you offered weren't the only viable options (and my answer proved that) but rather were all your limited intelligence could muster. I get that.

Well you can't really defend your stance so I can see why you can't answer.

Was Henry Ford a capitalist?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which ones are you referring to? A "marxist" economy wouldn't exist if communism was achieved, unless you count efficient use of surplus, guaranteed work, collective ownership of production. Workers paradise isn't a fools dream, it's something to strive for. Labor is exploited, constantly, although you don't follow the labor theory of value, so I wouldn't expect a capitalist to understand. They were exploiting your capital? Oh please. If a sweatshop worker produces $50 in products for the capitalist in an hour, leaving out where the base materials came from, and all of the labor used, the exploitation is real.

There's only one way to achieve your "worker's paradise" dream ... at the end of a gun. Like most "capitalists" I started out as an hourly wage earner but never whined about being "exploited." Like many I saved, looked for opportunities and when a good one came I borrowed what I could and jumped in with both feet. Making it work meant 80 hr work weeks but it created personal ownership of production and personal wealth ... something I wouldn't expect a socialist to understand or approve of.

Violent revolution, yes. The majority cannot become capitalists, no matter how hard they work, it's impossible.

Ah ... the eternal yet baseless whiny socialist lament. The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that roughly half of all Americans owned stocks either directly or indirectly (pension funds, 401k, IRAs, etc.) in 2012.

Yep, and that's half the story. How many of this half of all Americans have little more than what they invested and how many have lost some of their principle?

Q. How do you spell insider trading?

A. W A L L - S T R E E T

Another whiny sniveling socialist waddles in. Do you people ever do anything but whine?

Whine? My post was a fact jack. If you have evidence it is not, post it., But don't be an asshole (well, maybe that's all you've got).

 

[healthmyths]

Paying people for their labor does not slow the economy.
What is good for the country is a noble cause.
What is best for an individual company is for ownership and management to determine and still none of your biz.
Get your mind off my wallet and your hand out of my pocket.

No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

Still dodging the question? How sad. If you truly believe lots of inequality doesn't slow the economy than answer the question.

I answered your question, Princess (So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?) and I don't take marching orders from whiny socialists.

Actually I'm quite fiscally conservative. I want a strong economy, it is good for everyone. Have you noticed the economy has been slow as this inequality grows? I guess since you won't answer the question you don't even believe the crap you are saying.

Have you noticed that the economy is slowing as this is growing?
The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually. In 2013 alone, the Administration imposed 26 new major rules. Although slightly below President Obama’s first-term annual average (33), it was still twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Reforms of the regulatory process are critically needed. Without decisive action, the costs of red tape will continue to grow, and the economy—and average Americans—will suffer.
Red Tape Rising 5 Years of Regulatory Expansion
And all the while...
In 3 years new leases under Obama 5,568 new leases.. Under Bush.. from 2006 to 2008 15,095 new leases!
NEARLY 3 times the new Federal Leases under Bush then Obama !
Finally when you have an idiot that wants to destroy 1,400 companies that employ 400,000 people and annually pays over $100 billion who also says:
-- "I prefer higher gas prices".

-- "If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!"

-- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

YOU are bound to get a slowing economy!
Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.



And over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce. In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 


“All incentives are to regulate more,” said Susan Dudley, the director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.
REGULATION NATION Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state TheHill
NOW do you understand your statement? Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!

 

[Care4all]

Although the information is interesting giving the avg worker salary for the whole USA, PC/ the article writer is right that apples were compared to oranges in the AFL/CIO piece....

What should have been done, is a comparison of those large businesses, the s&p 500 CEO salaries that they were able to obtain, should have been compared to their own average worker's salaries within their own employment.

In other words, what do these specific ceo's make compared to their own corporation's workers. I mean, it could be something outrageous as well even with their own employees... but I betcha not as much as it shows compared to the avg USA worker.

In general, at least if you work in the corporate office, whether a receptionist or Director/Manager, big corporations pay their corporate employees quite well, and benefits galore as well.....compared to a Mom & Pop business.

 

[Brain357]

No but lots of inequality does slow the economy. So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Lotsa people making what they are worth and most already are.

Still dodging the question? How sad. If you truly believe lots of inequality doesn't slow the economy than answer the question.

I answered your question, Princess (So again what is better for the economy? 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?) and I don't take marching orders from whiny socialists.

Actually I'm quite fiscally conservative. I want a strong economy, it is good for everyone. Have you noticed the economy has been slow as this inequality grows? I guess since you won't answer the question you don't even believe the crap you are saying.

Have you noticed that the economy is slowing as this is growing?
The Obama Administration is aggressively exploiting regulation to achieve its policy agenda, issuing 157 new major rules at a cost to Americans approaching $73 billion annually. In 2013 alone, the Administration imposed 26 new major rules. Although slightly below President Obama’s first-term annual average (33), it was still twice the annual average of his predecessor George W. Bush. And much more regulation is on the way, with another 125 major rules on the Administration’s to-do list, including dozens linked to the Dodd–Frank financial regulation law and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, known as Obamacare. Reforms of the regulatory process are critically needed. Without decisive action, the costs of red tape will continue to grow, and the economy—and average Americans—will suffer.
Red Tape Rising 5 Years of Regulatory Expansion
And all the while...
In 3 years new leases under Obama 5,568 new leases.. Under Bush.. from 2006 to 2008 15,095 new leases!
NEARLY 3 times the new Federal Leases under Bush then Obama !
Finally when you have an idiot that wants to destroy 1,400 companies that employ 400,000 people and annually pays over $100 billion who also says:
-- "I prefer higher gas prices".

-- "If a utility wants to build coal burning it bankrupt them!"

-- "Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket"

My president would NEVER attack the military by accusing them of "air-raiding villages, killing civilians".

YOU are bound to get a slowing economy!
Data collected by researchers at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center shows that the Code of Federal Regulations, where all rules and regulations are detailed, has ballooned from 71,224 pages in 1975 to 174,545 pages last year.
More “major rules,” those with an annual economic impact exceeding $100 million, were enacted in 2010 than in any year dating back to at least 1997, according to the CRS.



And over Obama’s first three years in office, the Code of Federal Regulations increased by 7.4 percent, according to data compiled by the Chamber of Commerce. In comparison, the regulatory code grew by 4.4 percent during Bush’s first term. 


“All incentives are to regulate more,” said Susan Dudley, the director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center.
REGULATION NATION Obama oversees expansion of the regulatory state TheHill
NOW do you understand your statement? Obama IS LEADING the country with more rules and regulations then any other President in history and
this adds up to an annual total waste of $1,863,000,000,000! That's 1.8 Trillion dollars WASTED!

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

 

[SAYIT]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

 

[Care4all]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

what were they SAYIT? I vaguely remember a whole big Earth Day thing going back then, but what were the industries that were polluting and went to China or where ever instead?

 

[Brain357]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

I think it was a very smart trade-off. China has been growing fast but they will one day have a very expensive mess to clean up.

 

[SAYIT]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

what were they SAYIT? I vaguely remember a whole big Earth Day thing going back then, but what were the industries that were polluting and went to China or where ever instead?

Steel mfg for one. Ironically the National Mall was thoroughly trashed by those who were "concerned" enough to gather there on Earth Day 2015.









http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2015/108/49ad12a5-05a1-42a4-8f80-1b7b6544a8f4.jpg

 

[Synthaholic]

284 million is a pretty gross amount in my book.

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Feel free to move to China, go live your communist dream working for the collective. What you bunch of dumb asses don't understand is that if you hire some dip shit retard CEO who is willing to work for peanuts the company is more likely to fail and then they will all be out of work. Secondly, any savings in CEO salary will go to stock holders not to the workers, they own the company its their property. The guy who mows your lawn isn't entitled to a share of the profits when you sell your house now is he. Well there you go.

If a Federal law was passed that said total compensation cannot be xx times greater than the average employee's compensation it would affect all equally.

What the fuck business is it of the Federal government, this is a private matter between the CEO, the board, and the stock holders. Neither you or the Federal government has any say in the matter, zero, its none of your damn business.

The law is whatever the citizens decide it to be. If the citizens decide that it's their business to know, they will know. Any businesses that don't like it can get the fuck out. See if Putin will give you better terms.

 

[SAYIT]

If you are not a stock holder its none of your business, sorry to burst your bubble.

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Feel free to move to China, go live your communist dream working for the collective. What you bunch of dumb asses don't understand is that if you hire some dip shit retard CEO who is willing to work for peanuts the company is more likely to fail and then they will all be out of work. Secondly, any savings in CEO salary will go to stock holders not to the workers, they own the company its their property. The guy who mows your lawn isn't entitled to a share of the profits when you sell your house now is he. Well there you go.

If a Federal law was passed that said total compensation cannot be xx times greater than the average employee's compensation it would affect all equally.

What the fuck business is it of the Federal government, this is a private matter between the CEO, the board, and the stock holders. Neither you or the Federal government has any say in the matter, zero, its none of your damn business.

The law is whatever the citizens decide it to be. If the citizens decide that it's their business to know, they will know. Any businesses that don't like it can get the fuck out. See if Putin will give you better terms.

Fortunately we have something called the Constitution of the United States which offers investors some protection against the tyranny of whiny sniveling socialists and their endless demands for more of that which is not theirs. This is where they would take us:
INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

 

[Care4all]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

what were they SAYIT? I vaguely remember a whole big Earth Day thing going back then, but what were the industries that were polluting and went to China or where ever instead?

Steel mfg for one. Ironically the National Mall was thoroughly trashed by those who were "concerned" enough to gather there on Earth Day 2015.









http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2015/108/49ad12a5-05a1-42a4-8f80-1b7b6544a8f4.jpg

wonder what all that paper is in your pics? Why would anyone bring so much paper with them to a rally??? Very weird....
no public trash cans since 9/11 either...

 

[thanatos144]

When has the poor made jobs again?

 

[SAYIT]

Yes regulation can slow the economy too. But some of it is needed. Ever been to China? Lots of places there you can't even see the sky.

Good point but not how you think. America made a conscience decision beginning in the 1970s to clean up our environment. That required regulations which squeezed whole industries out of our country. In a sense, we exported those industries and the jobs to countries that would accept them and the pollution they create. Now the same voices that screamed loudest for the regulations are whining about the jobs lost. I for one think it was a smart trade-off but I'm not hypocritical enough to complain about those job losses.

what were they SAYIT? I vaguely remember a whole big Earth Day thing going back then, but what were the industries that were polluting and went to China or where ever instead?

Steel mfg for one. Ironically the National Mall was thoroughly trashed by those who were "concerned" enough to gather there on Earth Day 2015.









http://media.townhall.com/townhall/reu/ha/2015/108/49ad12a5-05a1-42a4-8f80-1b7b6544a8f4.jpg

wonder what all that paper is in your pics? Why would anyone bring so much paper with them to a rally??? Very weird....
no public trash cans since 9/11 either...

Yeah ... there were trash cans. Notice the styrofoam containers:

 

[Synthaholic]

So again what is better for the economy. 500 people making good money or one person making gross amounts of money?

Feel free to move to China, go live your communist dream working for the collective. What you bunch of dumb asses don't understand is that if you hire some dip shit retard CEO who is willing to work for peanuts the company is more likely to fail and then they will all be out of work. Secondly, any savings in CEO salary will go to stock holders not to the workers, they own the company its their property. The guy who mows your lawn isn't entitled to a share of the profits when you sell your house now is he. Well there you go.

If a Federal law was passed that said total compensation cannot be xx times greater than the average employee's compensation it would affect all equally.

What the fuck business is it of the Federal government, this is a private matter between the CEO, the board, and the stock holders. Neither you or the Federal government has any say in the matter, zero, its none of your damn business.

The law is whatever the citizens decide it to be. If the citizens decide that it's their business to know, they will know. Any businesses that don't like it can get the fuck out. See if Putin will give you better terms.

Fortunately we have something called the Constitution of the United States which offers investors some protection against the tyranny of whiny sniveling socialists and their endless demands for more of that which is not theirs. This is where they would take us:
INEPTOCRACY - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or even try are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Neither Capitalism nor the free enterprise system is included in the Constitution.