Please explain why you Republicans support the wealthy over your own middle class?

[eflatminor]

It has been the GOP Banner since Ronnie Reagan. You know...the old trickle down theory. Only thing is, wealth has been trickling up. The middle class is becoming smaller and the poor are getting poorer. Well done Ronnie!

Of course, America's poor are the envy of poor around the world...but don't let facts stop your bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Adam Smith on progressive taxation:

You are being dishonest, as Marxists so often are. I addressed this yesterday and you fled;

What Smith wrote was;

{"The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." (Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations)}

Clearly what this advocates is a FLAT TAX, a proportion of every dollar earned. There is nothing in there about graduating taxes or placing greater proportions on some.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, you don't send an email for nothing.

Yes, in fact I do.

You pay for electricity and for internet service.

As one pays for paper, pen, ink and envelope. Disingenuity fails to form a convincing argument.

And as the PO says, you can't send somebody's medication via email.

Rather, you send the order via email to the corner pharmacy for instant receipt. Walgreens does this all the time.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Uncensored2008]

The middle class represents a massive consumer base. Consumers buy things. Which is what creates jobs.

So you are advocating consumerism?

ROFL

Flailing madly.....

 

[Uncensored2008]

Look, Ma! Somebody understands how an economy ACTUALLY WORKS!



We don't have to grovel and scrape and beg the "job creators" to create us some jobs, pretty please.

Demand creates jobs.

Not John Galt.

I see.

I want a flying car.

Therefore, I have created jobs and I get my flying car..

Leftists have less understanding of how an economy works than the average two-year-old does.

 

[Foxfyre]

The astute businessman doesn't open a lumber/hardware store in a location where there is already a Lowe's, Home Depot, and a half dozen other big businesses already providing the products he would sell.

Instead he looks for an area in which the people are underserved re access to hardware and building supplies. And once he is about ready to open he will start hiring people. And if the business thrives and grows as he hopes, and if he does it right it will, he will expand and hire more people.

It is a market that provides jobs, not demand. There was plenty of demand in the area where big box stores operates, but little or no market for an additional store.

 

[flacaltenn]

The astute businessman doesn't open a lumber/hardware store in a location where there is already a Lowe's, Home Depot, and a half dozen other big businesses already providing the products he would sell.

Instead he looks for an area in which the people are underserved re access to hardware and building supplies. And once he is about ready to open he will start hiring people. And if the business thrives and grows as he hopes, and if he does it right it will, he will expand and hire more people.

It is a market that provides jobs, not demand. There was plenty of demand in the area where big box stores operates, but little or no market for an additional store.

Which is a limitation of "the service economy".. Your lumber biz person serves a limited community. A manufacturer serves the world from one location. If a manufacturer wants to double jobs and output -- they build ONE new factory. If Lowes wants to double jobs and output --- they might have to open 300 new stores all squeezed into marginal local markets and only add marginally to existing stores.

Wonder how jobless recovery happen? This is part of the reason...

 

[ba1614]

But you will find something about the general welfare, which presumably includes services which are essential to a properly functioning and secure social order.

Hey Mike..........think that the flat minor would feel the same way if they were sleeping in their house, and someone broke into their house and kidnapped a child of theirs?

I'm pretty sure they'd want the government (in the form of the police) to get involved.

Boy are you WRONG there "bikersailor". If a scumbag broke into my house, the LAST thing I'll do is call the cops. I'm well armed, well trained and have no problem defending myself, my family and my property. Same goes for each member of my family. The police would be free to come pick up the bodies of the kidnappers but other than that, I do not require their services.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Amen my friend.
If my dogs don't get 'em, the .45 on this hicks bedpost will.

 

[Seawytch]

What is absurd is that some yahoo from Mississippi that doesn't have insurance can visit my great state, have something happen to them and then MY STATE has to pick up the tab for that individual. That is absurd.

And yet, you vote for the bleeding heart politicians that write laws requiring hospitals take in all comers. Hypocrite much?!

Nothing hypocritical about it. I support a UHC system.

 

[MikeK]

Wrong. The government does not exist to provide services. It exists to keep us free and to keep the borders safe. Anything else it is required to do is clearly spelled out in the Constitution...where you won't find much about "essential services".

[...]

But you will find something about the general welfare, which presumably includes services which are essential to a properly functioning and secure social order.

Hey Mike..........think that the flat minor would feel the same way if they were sleeping in their house, and someone broke into their house and kidnapped a child of theirs?

I'm pretty sure they'd want the government (in the form of the police) to get involved.

The Libertarian philosophy is seductive but its one major defect is reality.

Based on conversations I've had with Libertarians it appears they focus on one or two appealing aspects of that ideology, such as no taxes and legalized marijuana (which appeals to me, too), but they give little or no thought to such contingencies as you've presented along with the inevitable plight of the poor and the destitute -- and on and on.

 

[eflatminor]

What is absurd is that some yahoo from Mississippi that doesn't have insurance can visit my great state, have something happen to them and then MY STATE has to pick up the tab for that individual. That is absurd.

And yet, you vote for the bleeding heart politicians that write laws requiring hospitals take in all comers. Hypocrite much?!

Nothing hypocritical about it. I support a UHC system.

Of course you do. What program run by the federal government isn't a shining example of efficiency and cost effectiveness? Idiot.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet, you vote for the bleeding heart politicians that write laws requiring hospitals take in all comers. Hypocrite much?!

Nothing hypocritical about it. I support a UHC system.

Of course you do. What program run by the federal government isn't a shining example of efficiency and cost effectiveness? Idiot.

Universal eh?? Oh you mean UNIVERSAL like in the Soc Sec system where by RAISING the cap, defunding the premiums and STEALING $3Trill in surplus FICA over the years -- the AssClowns in Wash have now made UNIVERSAL mean -- 'benefitting only a few'..

Good LUCK with that UNIVERSAL branding bud.. We've seen the results. And we're swimming in the WRECKAGE of anything UNIVERSAL that the Govt has created.. You better hope that SOMEONE still wants Soc Sec to be a UNIVERSAL system, because that's how it's been advertised for decades..

 

[eflatminor]

But you will find something about the general welfare, which presumably includes services which are essential to a properly functioning and secure social order.

Hey Mike..........think that the flat minor would feel the same way if they were sleeping in their house, and someone broke into their house and kidnapped a child of theirs?

I'm pretty sure they'd want the government (in the form of the police) to get involved.

The Libertarian philosophy is seductive but its one major defect is reality.

Based on conversations I've had with Libertarians it appears they focus on one or two appealing aspects of that ideology, such as no taxes and legalized marijuana (which appeals to me, too), but they give little or no thought to such contingencies as you've presented along with the inevitable plight of the poor and the destitute -- and on and on.

Actually, Libertarians focus on freedom and liberty. Taxes or other fees are absolutely required to fund required federal government activities (post office, border protection...you know, the enumerated powers). So, you're wrong, we're not against taxes, just the government living outside it's means and outside the law. You're also wrong about pot. We don't want cannabis legalized per se, we want what a person chooses to put in their body to be no one else's damn business. Big difference.

The police are a state agency, not to be funded by the feds, so that's another false argument. Regarding the "plight of the poor" we Libertarians argue that it's YOUR social welfare programs and laws that keep the poor poor. We'd rather see the best welfare handout of all, a job. Of course, those on the dole do make obedient voters for your side, don't they?

 

[MikeK]

You are wrong on all accounts, sorry, but you are. Wealth is NOT finite. Do you really think that because Steve Jobs made a lot of money, someone else made less? That is ridiculous. A large spread of income levels is a byproduct of a free and productive society. You want income equality, look to socialist and communist countries...not America.

You REALLY need to read up on real economics. Whoever is influencing you, they are clearly a Keynesian socialist...which never works. Try Mises or Hayek for a stater.

Do you understand the meaning of finite? It doesn't seem that you do.

Whatever Steve Jobs' corporation earns in a given year (its wealth), the amount that he pays his employees in that year reduces the profit margin (wealth). The wealth is finite. The distribution is flexible.

And if you believe Milton Friedman's supply side theory is better for America than J.M. Keynes' demand side recommendations you need to read up on what happened to Chile when Allende was deposed by Pinochet -- who followed Friedman's advice to the letter.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Foxfyre]

The astute businessman doesn't open a lumber/hardware store in a location where there is already a Lowe's, Home Depot, and a half dozen other big businesses already providing the products he would sell.

Instead he looks for an area in which the people are underserved re access to hardware and building supplies. And once he is about ready to open he will start hiring people. And if the business thrives and grows as he hopes, and if he does it right it will, he will expand and hire more people.

It is a market that provides jobs, not demand. There was plenty of demand in the area where big box stores operates, but little or no market for an additional store.

Which is a limitation of "the service economy".. Your lumber biz person serves a limited community. A manufacturer serves the world from one location. If a manufacturer wants to double jobs and output -- they build ONE new factory. If Lowes wants to double jobs and output --- they might have to open 300 new stores all squeezed into marginal local markets and only add marginally to existing stores.

Wonder how jobless recovery happen? This is part of the reason...

Lowes indeed may displace the small store just as the big super market going in will displace the corner market etc. Aesthetically that is disappointing to us, but it is the market that dictates such things. If we choose to buy a product at 10 or 15% less than what a small supplier can provide it, that is what we generally choose.

It is a misnomer, however, to think that Lowes will open a lot of new stores where there is no existing market. And I don't see Lowe's going into the tiny rural community where the small hardware store thrives, because even if the small store closes, there still won't be a market large enough to provide a sufficient customer base for a Lowe's.

What hampers job creation is the reluctance of those with investment capital to invest it when they have no way to calculate the odds of risk re taxes, regulation, and government mandates. That is what our current Fearless Leader seems to have zero understanding of and why he keeps coming up with things that hurt job expansion instead of promoting it.

 

[MikeK]

It has been the GOP Banner since Ronnie Reagan. You know...the old trickle down theory. Only thing is, wealth has been trickling up. The middle class is becoming smaller and the poor are getting poorer. Well done Ronnie!

Of course, America's poor are the envy of poor around the world...but don't let facts stop your bullshit.

So your standard of comparison with America is someplace like Ethiopia?

 

[eflatminor]

Whatever Steve Jobs' corporation earns in a given year (its wealth), the amount that he pays his employees in that year reduces the profit margin (wealth). The wealth is finite. The distribution is flexible.

Let's just let that FUCKING RIDICULOUS statement sit for a moment...see if it ages into something having anything to do with wealth creation or wealth destruction...

Hope. No better. In fact, it stinks the more it sits out.

It's a pure non sequiter. The fact that salaries required to put a product into the market are one of the many expenses a business faces before profit can be realized does nothing to support your argument that "wealth is finite". NOTHING. In fact, those jobs that Apple created to put their products into market increased the wealth of the employees earning those salaries. As Apple made more and more profit (evil rich, I know), it made more wealth for Steve Jobs. He CREATED wealth for himself and his employees because he created a popular product that sold well.

If you believe wealth is finite, what's the figure? What is the exact amount of wealth that is to be divided up? Anything that is finite has a number attached to it. What is that number that you say is static and how is it that that number has not changed since the beginning of time?

 

[MikeK]

Boy are you WRONG there "bikersailor". If a scumbag broke into my house, the LAST thing I'll do is call the cops. I'm well armed, well trained and have no problem defending myself, my family and my property. Same goes for each member of my family. The police would be free to come pick up the bodies of the kidnappers but other than that, I do not require their services.

If you were indeed the kind of badass you might believe yourself to be you would know just how absurd what you've said really is.

 

[eflatminor]

It has been the GOP Banner since Ronnie Reagan. You know...the old trickle down theory. Only thing is, wealth has been trickling up. The middle class is becoming smaller and the poor are getting poorer. Well done Ronnie!

Of course, America's poor are the envy of poor around the world...but don't let facts stop your bullshit.

So your standard of comparison with America is someplace like Ethiopia?

Let's have a look at how the "poor" in America live. From the latest Census figures:

What is Poverty in the United States: Air Conditioning, Cable TV and an Xbox

Air conditioners, refrigerators, TV, cars, X boxes...and only 1.5% of "poor" household reporting they often didn't have enough food. Until you've seen poverty throughout the world like I have, you have no idea what it means to be poor.

 

[eflatminor]

Boy are you WRONG there "bikersailor". If a scumbag broke into my house, the LAST thing I'll do is call the cops. I'm well armed, well trained and have no problem defending myself, my family and my property. Same goes for each member of my family. The police would be free to come pick up the bodies of the kidnappers but other than that, I do not require their services.

If you were indeed the kind of badass you might believe yourself to be you would know just how absurd what you've said really is.

Another lefty ad hominem attack with no basis in logic or reason. Shocking!!!

Care to try again, with specifics and using logic and reason? Oh God, don't go there!