Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Because they're kool-aid drinkers. They've been told that rich people "give" them jobs, and they actually believe this.
The peasant grows the grain
The peasant's wife bakes the bread
The lord, who owns the fields, takes all the bread
Of which he gives back to the peasant enough to avoid starvation
The peasant is expected to be grateful
And the rich people pay them to do all these jobs. It's all about jobs. The more you tax the people who create jobs the less jobs they create and you end up with a 9+% unemployment.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
It is an involuntary response...they hit their knees before the wealthy they worship. It is a Monica Lewinsky syndrome...
The typical rightwinger is obsessed with celebrity - especially rich celebrity. The rich to the right are like the royalty to the English - they love them, no matter what, and have no problem with them having more and more and more. They honestly believe that without rich people, the economy could produce nothing.
But the most recent trend in right wing ideology - and the most scary - is that financial success not only equals financial worth - it equals moral worth as well. If someone is poor, its because they are morally deficient - if someone is rich, it is because they are morally virtuous. And it matters not how this came into being. If you are born wealthy and never actually work in your life, then you are still the virtuous "job creator" to the right - while if you are born to a single parent in poverty and have a bad education, you are still poor because of character and moral deficiencies.
You forgot to use the sarcasm smiley.
Some people may think you actually believe that.
its true. The right doesn't even want poor people to be able to vote, that is how much they despise them.
Wow... how so?
Poor people are poor because they are bad people, are they not?
Of course not... that's fucking stupid. Why would you say that?
If you are 'not' fighting for the middle class, you are fighting against America.
"It took eight years of Republican Rule to get America into this mess, so it may take that long for the Democrats to dig us out."
It is an involuntary response...they hit their knees before the wealthy they worship. It is a Monica Lewinsky syndrome...
Wrong, you bow down to suck the cock of some democrat that you think will give you something instead of earning it yourself.
My sense has always been most who advocate for egalitarian policy do so from a failure to learn that shit just ain't fair in formative childhood.
"The world doesn't owe you shit"
My Dad's favorite saying.
Because they're kool-aid drinkers. They've been told that rich people "give" them jobs, and they actually believe this.
The peasant grows the grain
The peasant's wife bakes the bread
The lord, who owns the fields, takes all the bread
Of which he gives back to the peasant enough to avoid starvation
The peasant is expected to be grateful
And the rich people pay them to do all these jobs. It's all about jobs. The more you tax the people who create jobs the less jobs they create and you end up with a 9+% unemployment.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
You seem to think only the rich are capable of providing work for others when the fact is tens of thousands of small businesses that formerly employed two or three people have been swallowed up by monopolistic corporations, many of which are increasingly exporting jobs and importing cheap foreign-made products thereby eliminating the need for American workers. America is being transformed into a corporatocracy.Today, the rich build factories, employ peasants, pay them for working to produce products (goods and services) to sell to others.
Have you ever been hired by a poor person?
Blissfully ignorant in YOUR role of favoring HUGE biz over those beloved small bizs are you??? It's the army of bureaucratic regulators and compliance that favor the survival of the biggest. Several great examples of that. Check out the banner in my footer for instance.
Taxes are imposed on profits, not on operating capital. So raising taxes has absolutely no effect on hiring to fill available jobs. The only reason you believe otherwise is you've been brainwashed.Adding tax burdens to the already overburdened rich will not produce more jobs for the poor. Dipsticks with a static view of the economy have no clue how it really works.
If you are 'not' fighting for the middle class, you are fighting against America.
"It took eight years of Republican Rule to get America into this mess, so it may take that long for the Democrats to dig us out."
And the rich people pay them to do all these jobs. It's all about jobs. The more you tax the people who create jobs the less jobs they create and you end up with a 9+% unemployment.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
So let me see if I've got how this works...
Liberals put forth the notion that Obama's stimulus was a success because things would be so much worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus, yet you say the Bush tax cuts are a failure because it didn't bring us to full employment?
Not to point out the obvious but perhaps the reason the Bush tax cuts were reluctantly extended by Obama is because letting them expire would have caused more unemployment?
And the rich people pay them to do all these jobs. It's all about jobs. The more you tax the people who create jobs the less jobs they create and you end up with a 9+% unemployment.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
No. Taxes are just one facet. Another is reasonable regulations. Obama has created a hostile and unstable environment to business where they have nothing to hang their hat on. They will continue to hold what they have until they feel comfortable enough to start taking risks again. Businesses take calculated risks, they are not gambling addicts.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
So let me see if I've got how this works...
Liberals put forth the notion that Obama's stimulus was a success because things would be so much worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus, yet you say the Bush tax cuts are a failure because it didn't bring us to full employment?
Not to point out the obvious but perhaps the reason the Bush tax cuts were reluctantly extended by Obama is because letting them expire would have caused more unemployment?
The Bush tax cuts were a failure because they gave us a 10 trillion dollar deficit. Thought everyone knew that.
Because Trailer Park Republicans think they are gonna hit the super lotto.
So let me see if I've got how this works...
Liberals put forth the notion that Obama's stimulus was a success because things would be so much worse than if we hadn't done the stimulus, yet you say the Bush tax cuts are a failure because it didn't bring us to full employment?
Not to point out the obvious but perhaps the reason the Bush tax cuts were reluctantly extended by Obama is because letting them expire would have caused more unemployment?
The Bush tax cuts were a failure because they gave us a 10 trillion dollar deficit. Thought everyone knew that.
A clear lie. rdunce doesn't "think" anything. He can't think. Utterly incapable of it.
Class Warfare!!!!!
Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.
It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.
I've been out of town all day and am too lazy to wade through 24 pages of posts, so I'll cut to the chase on these two comments...
Republicans never apolgized to BP.
Oil companies do not receive subsidies.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
No. Taxes are just one facet. Another is reasonable regulations. Obama has created a hostile and unstable environment to business where they have nothing to hang their hat on. They will continue to hold what they have until they feel comfortable enough to start taking risks again. Businesses take calculated risks, they are not gambling addicts.
And yet, since Obama has been president, business profits have never been so high. Go figure.
That being the case, with the Bush tax cuts still in effect, we should be at full employment should we not?
No. Taxes are just one facet. Another is reasonable regulations. Obama has created a hostile and unstable environment to business where they have nothing to hang their hat on. They will continue to hold what they have until they feel comfortable enough to start taking risks again. Businesses take calculated risks, they are not gambling addicts.
And yet, since Obama has been president, business profits have never been so high. Go figure.
lol...exactly what I typed while you were posting this.No. Taxes are just one facet. Another is reasonable regulations. Obama has created a hostile and unstable environment to business where they have nothing to hang their hat on. They will continue to hold what they have until they feel comfortable enough to start taking risks again. Businesses take calculated risks, they are not gambling addicts.
And yet, since Obama has been president, business profits have never been so high. Go figure.
And unemployment has never been so bad during a recovery after a severe recession.
Capital is on strike due to Obamanomics. Instead of investing in expectation of business growth, businesses and investors are sitting on cash. Which is perfectly rational given the extreme economic uncertainty being promoted by Obama.
Class Warfare!!!!!
Class Warfare started before Republicans apologized to BP.
It began before Republicans created subsidies for oil companies.
I've been out of town all day and am too lazy to wade through 24 pages of posts, so I'll cut to the chase on these two comments...
Republicans never apolgized to BP.
Oil companies do not receive subsidies.
Oil companies pay less in U.S. taxes in part because they receive generous tax subsidies. These subsidies will cost the U.S. government about $3 billion next year in lost revenue and nearly $20 billion over the next five years.
Tax expenditures are government spending through the tax code. They are distributed through deductions, exclusions, credits, exemptions, preferential tax rates, and deferrals. What makes them look different from grants or checks is that they are delivered through the tax code as part of tax expenditure spending programs.
These tax expenditures can amount to a significant portion of federal subsidies for oil and gas. The cost of tax expenditure programs for oil and gas companies made up about 88 percent of total federal subsidies in 2006.
Pumping Tax Dollars to Big Oil
