Nothing generates unemployment like liberal policy

[tycho1572]

I'm glad we'll soon have an intelligent president. A man who knows how to create jobs, and repair the damage Obama has caused.

 

[P@triot]

For a bunch of Atheists, Liberals sure have faith. Their policies would take a miracle to work.

not at all; progress is being made. Pot is legal for adults in California now.

What does that have to do with failed progressive policies?

those are not failed progressive policies; they are, progressing.

You're really having trouble following along here. The progressive policies are creating unemployment, government debt, etc. They are failing.

 

[danielpalos]

For a bunch of Atheists, Liberals sure have faith. Their policies would take a miracle to work.

not at all; progress is being made. Pot is legal for adults in California now.

What does that have to do with failed progressive policies?

those are not failed progressive policies; they are, progressing.

You're really having trouble following along here. The progressive policies are creating unemployment, government debt, etc. They are failing.

Those are not, progressive policies. Progressive policies from the alt-left, come out trying to merely use Capitalism, for all of its worth. That means, it must be an Investment in the general welfare.

 

[P@triot]

For a bunch of Atheists, Liberals sure have faith. Their policies would take a miracle to work.

not at all; progress is being made. Pot is legal for adults in California now.

What does that have to do with failed progressive policies?

those are not failed progressive policies; they are, progressing.

You're really having trouble following along here. The progressive policies are creating unemployment, government debt, etc. They are failing.

Those are not, progressive policies. Progressive policies from the alt-left, come out trying to merely use Capitalism, for all of its worth. That means, it must be an Investment in the general welfare.

"Fight for $15" is a progressive policy. Obamacare is a progressive policy. Cap 'n Trade is a progressive policy. All of them cause high unemployment.

 

[danielpalos]

not at all; progress is being made. Pot is legal for adults in California now.

What does that have to do with failed progressive policies?

those are not failed progressive policies; they are, progressing.

You're really having trouble following along here. The progressive policies are creating unemployment, government debt, etc. They are failing.

Those are not, progressive policies. Progressive policies from the alt-left, come out trying to merely use Capitalism, for all of its worth. That means, it must be an Investment in the general welfare.

"Fight for $15" is a progressive policy. Obamacare is a progressive policy. Cap 'n Trade is a progressive policy. All of them cause high unemployment.

equal protection of the law regarding the legal concept of employment at will for unemployment compensation purposes; is also, a left wing, progressive policy.

 

[P@triot]

Wherever the left-wing ideology goes, decay, depravity, poverty, and misery soon follows....

"We can't look at the filmed Chicago beatings and the hundreds of Chicago killings as distinct, with the beatings 'political violence' and the killings just crime as usual. They're both the product of a depraved culture, and they're both facilitated by the breakdown in law and order. It's time to stop celebrating depravity. It's time to stop crippling the police. And it's time to speak the truth. Our nation's social fabric is fraying—nowhere more than in Chicago. This is the left's city, a foundation of its national power. How many more people have to die before it changes course?"

Chicago Is Breaking

 

[danielpalos]

Wherever the left-wing ideology goes, decay, depravity, poverty, and misery soon follows....

"We can't look at the filmed Chicago beatings and the hundreds of Chicago killings as distinct, with the beatings 'political violence' and the killings just crime as usual. They're both the product of a depraved culture, and they're both facilitated by the breakdown in law and order. It's time to stop celebrating depravity. It's time to stop crippling the police. And it's time to speak the truth. Our nation's social fabric is fraying—nowhere more than in Chicago. This is the left's city, a foundation of its national power. How many more people have to die before it changes course?"

Chicago Is Breaking

sounds more like, disgruntled, fellow Klingon's. when are the People who may be poor, going to get equal protection of the law, so the can be better capitalists instead of Bad socialists. unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed, will solve most of our problems, even with our, Youth of the Nation.

 

[P@triot]

Progressives just don't understand basic economics and basic business. Couple that with the fact that they are immature idealists and it spells economic disaster when they are in charge.

I've tried to dumb it down for them: just as a consumer shops for the best deal, so too does a business. The United States is in a battle with other nations for "customers". We must give businesses the best deal or they will take their companies overseas.

Unfortunately though - their damn idealism that continues to get in the way.

Life Savers, a candy manufacturing company, was based in Holland, Michigan, for decades. In 2002, it moved to Montreal. It didn’t move because Canada had lower wages. Canadian wages are similar to ours. The mayor of Holland offered Kraft, the parent company of Life Savers, a 15-year tax break worth $25 million to stay. But Kraft’s CEO said it would save $90 million over the same period because sugar was less expensive in Canada.

Anti-Business Policies Are the Real Reason Companies Leave

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives just don't understand basic economics and basic business. Couple that with the fact that they are immature idealists and it spells economic disaster when they are in charge.

I've tried to dumb it down for them: just as a consumer shops for the best deal, so too does a business. The United States is in a battle with other nations for "customers". We must give businesses the best deal or they will take their companies overseas.

Unfortunately though - their damn idealism that continues to get in the way.

Life Savers, a candy manufacturing company, was based in Holland, Michigan, for decades. In 2002, it moved to Montreal. It didn’t move because Canada had lower wages. Canadian wages are similar to ours. The mayor of Holland offered Kraft, the parent company of Life Savers, a 15-year tax break worth $25 million to stay. But Kraft’s CEO said it would save $90 million over the same period because sugar was less expensive in Canada.

Anti-Business Policies Are the Real Reason Companies Leave

why not simply drug test those CEOs and deny them steak and lobster privileges, in the US.?

 

[pinqy]

Progressives just don't understand basic economics and basic business. Couple that with the fact that they are immature idealists and it spells economic disaster when they are in charge.

I've tried to dumb it down for them: just as a consumer shops for the best deal, so too does a business. The United States is in a battle with other nations for "customers". We must give businesses the best deal or they will take their companies overseas.

Unfortunately though - their damn idealism that continues to get in the way.

Life Savers, a candy manufacturing company, was based in Holland, Michigan, for decades. In 2002, it moved to Montreal. It didn’t move because Canada had lower wages. Canadian wages are similar to ours. The mayor of Holland offered Kraft, the parent company of Life Savers, a 15-year tax break worth $25 million to stay. But Kraft’s CEO said it would save $90 million over the same period because sugar was less expensive in Canada.

Anti-Business Policies Are the Real Reason Companies Leave

Support for sugar subsidies is about equal between Republicans and Democrats. So that's a poor example against progressives.

 

[P@triot]

Progressives continue to destroy jobs and companies with their idiotic failed socialist policies - trading low-wage jobs for no wage jobs:

Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives continue to destroy jobs and companies with their idiotic failed socialist policies - trading low-wage jobs for no wage jobs:

Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike

capitalists are just plain lazy, if they have to work harder, for less.

 

[Winston]

Progressives continue to destroy jobs and companies with their idiotic failed socialist policies - trading low-wage jobs for no wage jobs:

Surprise: Bay Area Restaurants Disappear After Minimum Wage Hike

capitalists are just plain lazy, if they have to work harder, for less.

No shit. Wanting something for nothing. That is what tax cuts do. Hell, why would a company worry about investing in people, equipment, or even research when they can improve their bottom line simply by lobbying for tax cuts. Extra money FOR FREE.

The Laffer curve is a CURVE. We have been on the left side of that curve for decades. Tax cuts do not, and will not, increase revenue to the government when they are at such low levels.

 

[P@triot]

No shit. Wanting something for nothing. That is what tax cuts do.

That literally may be the dumbest comment ever made. Ever. Seriously. "Wanting something for nothing"?!? What do they want? To be able to keep more of their money? The money they earned? Gasp! Oh the horrors.

I love how your lazy, greedy, little socialist ass thinks that you are entitled to their money and damn them for trying to keep what already belongs to them. Idiot.

What makes that comment extra special stupid is that the article wasn't even about taxes. It was about minimum wage. Clearly you're illiterate.

 

[Winston]

No shit. Wanting something for nothing. That is what tax cuts do.

That literally may be the dumbest comment ever made. Ever. Seriously. "Wanting something for nothing"?!? What do they want? To be able to keep more of their money? The money they earned? Gasp! Oh the horrors.

I love how your lazy, greedy, little socialist ass thinks that you are entitled to their money and damn them for trying to keep what already belongs to them. Idiot.

What makes that comment extra special stupid is that the article wasn't even about taxes. It was about minimum wage. Clearly you're illiterate.

The keep more of their money argument is stupid. One can make that argument for anyone and anything.

Here is the deal. You have a business. You make a profit. You pay the tax. Now, if you pay less tax you do get to keep more of your money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing, the government gave you a tax cut. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

 

[P@triot]

The keep more of their money argument is stupid. One can make that argument for anyone and anything.

Here is the deal. You have a business. You make a profit. You pay the tax. Now, if you pay less tax you do get to keep more of your money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing, the government gave you a tax cut. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

So lets apply your own "logic" to your own position:

Here is the deal. You are the government. You take from people. It's essentially legalized stealing. Now, if you take more taxes you get to steal more money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing to earn that additional revenue. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY.

Do you realize how insanely stupid you are now - or should I keep going?

 

[P@triot]

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

They've already done all of that (and more) you dumb shit. Clearly you've never run a business. You just sit on the sideline like a lazy, greedy fuck demanding more from others.

Those companies already took risk (they started a business). They worked hard (not only does the business exist, it is turning a profit). They shouldn't be forced to work twice as hard for the same amount simply because you're lazy and greedy.

 

[Winston]

The keep more of their money argument is stupid. One can make that argument for anyone and anything.

Here is the deal. You have a business. You make a profit. You pay the tax. Now, if you pay less tax you do get to keep more of your money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing, the government gave you a tax cut. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

So lets apply your own "logic" to your own position:

Here is the deal. You are the government. You take from people. It's essentially legalized stealing. Now, if you take more taxes you get to steal more money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing to earn that additional revenue. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY.

Do you realize how insanely stupid you are now - or should I keep going?

Wow, I didn't realize the government was a business.

Dumb shit

 

[Winston]

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

They've already done all of that (and more) you dumb shit. Clearly you've never run a business. You just sit on the sideline like a lazy, greedy fuck demanding more from others.

Those companies already took risk (they started a business). They worked hard (not only does the business exist, it is turning a profit). They shouldn't be forced to work twice as hard for the same amount simply because you're lazy and greedy.

Yeah, and they already made a damn profit. But they want a tax cut, so they can make more profit, WITH THE SAME WORK.

And yes, I do run a business. I have been self-employed for more than two decades. If I want to make more money, I work more, or harder, or more effectively. I don't lobby my Congressman to give me some free money for doing nothing. That is like sucking off the teat of the government sow.

 

[P@triot]

The keep more of their money argument is stupid. One can make that argument for anyone and anything.

Here is the deal. You have a business. You make a profit. You pay the tax. Now, if you pay less tax you do get to keep more of your money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing, the government gave you a tax cut. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY

So yeah, why invest in increasing productivity, why attempt to be innovative, why take additional risk? The job of the CEO is to increase revenue. Taxcuts increase revenue without the CEO doing a damn thing. I mean here is a thought, if those companies want more revenue they can do what I have to do when I want more income--FUCKING WORK FOR IT.

So lets apply your own "logic" to your own position:

Here is the deal. You are the government. You take from people. It's essentially legalized stealing. Now, if you take more taxes you get to steal more money, for what? Did you increase efficiency? NO. Did you increase productivity? NO. Were you innovative? NO. Did you take additional risk? NO. You didn't do a damn thing to earn that additional revenue. More money for DOING NOTHING. MAKING NOTHING. Taking no extra risk. FREE MONEY.

Do you realize how insanely stupid you are now - or should I keep going?

Wow, I didn't realize the government was a business.

Dumb shit

Bwahahahaha! Way to run from that one snowflake.

So government is entitled to unlimited money because they are not a business - but businesses are shameful for keeping more what they already worked really hard to earn? My, my, you are a special kind of stupid, aren't you?