Walmart says tax bill allowed raise hikes

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm getting a hell of a lot more now that I did under DumBama.

I'll get more from my paycheck.
I'll likely get more work.
I'll get my income tax refund check.

What did I get with Hussein and his spending?

Ah, the simplistic view of things.

No future, no past, just the now. Nothing else matters. Forget that the economy will crash big time at some point in the future. Yeah, who cares?

Bush put tax cuts in place during his time in office. In 2001 and 2004 he put tax cuts in place. There was a recession, then the recession abated. The unemployment rate dropped in time for reelection. Bush looked good. He got reelected. Then what happened? The economy went to the worst recession the US has seen since WW2.

Some people made a lot of money out of that recession. Money doesn't disappear. It goes somewhere.

Warren Buffet made a lot of money.

Buffet bought lots of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs made a lot of money by short selling subprime mortgage backed securities. A lot of people lost a lot of money because of this. Americans lost 1/4 of their net worth. Retirement assets dropped 22%. Unemployment doubled.

7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. Are they ready to buy again? — bobsullivan.net

"
7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. Are they ready to buy again?"

7 million people lost their homes.

The recession was a tragedy for millions of Americans and it made some Americans extremely rich. People who couldn't afford to lose, lost. People who could afford to lose lots, gained.

This WILL happen again Ray. You don't see it. You see a little extra cash just like you might have seen a little extra cash in 2005. But to pretend that it'll all be fine and dandy, that you'll still be rich at the end of it is ludicrous.

It's like being given a candy now that then gives you cancer later and being real fucking happy you got candy.

Ridiculous. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the recession, the housing crash did. It's was building for years before Bush even took office. It's what happens when GOVERNMENT regulates that banks give loans to people with no money or ability to repay. That's how people lost their homes.

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. Bush allowed the banks to get away with stuff that shouldn't have been happening. Bush wanted to pump the economy.

He pumped the economy.

That's what's happening now. People get more money, they see the economy doing well, they'll take out loans in order to try and make more money and the next recession will happen.

The limit of the presidential terms to 2 terms is killing the US, because it makes presidents put in short term measures to get elected the second time without having to think beyond 4 years.

No, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the housing crash.

First off, most people got a tax cut--not just the wealthy. Secondly, can you explain to me how allowing people to keep more of their money hurts the economy? None of you leftists have ever been able to give me the dynamics of that. If you get a raise at work, does that make you want to spend more money or less?

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Second. How does keeping more of their money hurts the economy. Yes, I can. Will you read it and understand it? Probably not.

There is a natural cycle within capitalism of boom and bust. In the 1930s unregulated capitalism led to the worst recession the US has ever seen.

Before this there was a speculative boom. People were investing. They saw the boom happening and they wanted to make it rich. People will take risks. Look at bitcoin today. People see the value rising massively, so they'll mortgage their house to buy bitcoin

People are taking out mortgages to buy bitcoin, says securities regulator

Well, what happens if bitcoin goes down? They've lost their house. They're taking the risks because the economy is going upwards, and when it goes it, it has to come down.

Govt regulation can either push the economy, make it rise and rise, make people go crazy taking risks in order to make themselves richer, or it can do what the Chinese are doing, which is trying to limit the grow, so that people don't get in such a frenzy, so growth is steady, things don't get overpriced, things don't go crazy. A steady economy where people can be secure in what they do, but not see such wild growth that makes then take crazy risks.

That is totally retarded. People invest year round, and there will always be above average risk takers.

But it takes more than just a good economy. It takes capitalization on a trend.

The housing bubble was a trend. People were buying houses one week and selling them the next week for huge profits.

The tech bubble was a trend. Eventually, everything astounding that was to be invited was, and that's when the bubble burst. Prior to that, the internet allowed people to become overnight millionaires. Because there was so much that could be done with the internet, many did invest every dime they had into it.

But one or two companies doing well in a good economy is nothing. Even one sector of the economy doing well isn't enough to crash any market.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Geee, I really feel stupid now. I'll try to do as you suggest:

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

 

[frigidweirdo]

Ah, the simplistic view of things.

No future, no past, just the now. Nothing else matters. Forget that the economy will crash big time at some point in the future. Yeah, who cares?

Bush put tax cuts in place during his time in office. In 2001 and 2004 he put tax cuts in place. There was a recession, then the recession abated. The unemployment rate dropped in time for reelection. Bush looked good. He got reelected. Then what happened? The economy went to the worst recession the US has seen since WW2.

Some people made a lot of money out of that recession. Money doesn't disappear. It goes somewhere.

Warren Buffet made a lot of money.

Buffet bought lots of Goldman Sachs.

Goldman Sachs made a lot of money by short selling subprime mortgage backed securities. A lot of people lost a lot of money because of this. Americans lost 1/4 of their net worth. Retirement assets dropped 22%. Unemployment doubled.

7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. Are they ready to buy again? — bobsullivan.net

"
7 million Americans lost their homes during the recession. Are they ready to buy again?"

7 million people lost their homes.

The recession was a tragedy for millions of Americans and it made some Americans extremely rich. People who couldn't afford to lose, lost. People who could afford to lose lots, gained.

This WILL happen again Ray. You don't see it. You see a little extra cash just like you might have seen a little extra cash in 2005. But to pretend that it'll all be fine and dandy, that you'll still be rich at the end of it is ludicrous.

It's like being given a candy now that then gives you cancer later and being real fucking happy you got candy.

Ridiculous. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the recession, the housing crash did. It's was building for years before Bush even took office. It's what happens when GOVERNMENT regulates that banks give loans to people with no money or ability to repay. That's how people lost their homes.

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. Bush allowed the banks to get away with stuff that shouldn't have been happening. Bush wanted to pump the economy.

He pumped the economy.

That's what's happening now. People get more money, they see the economy doing well, they'll take out loans in order to try and make more money and the next recession will happen.

The limit of the presidential terms to 2 terms is killing the US, because it makes presidents put in short term measures to get elected the second time without having to think beyond 4 years.

No, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the housing crash.

First off, most people got a tax cut--not just the wealthy. Secondly, can you explain to me how allowing people to keep more of their money hurts the economy? None of you leftists have ever been able to give me the dynamics of that. If you get a raise at work, does that make you want to spend more money or less?

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Second. How does keeping more of their money hurts the economy. Yes, I can. Will you read it and understand it? Probably not.

There is a natural cycle within capitalism of boom and bust. In the 1930s unregulated capitalism led to the worst recession the US has ever seen.

Before this there was a speculative boom. People were investing. They saw the boom happening and they wanted to make it rich. People will take risks. Look at bitcoin today. People see the value rising massively, so they'll mortgage their house to buy bitcoin

People are taking out mortgages to buy bitcoin, says securities regulator

Well, what happens if bitcoin goes down? They've lost their house. They're taking the risks because the economy is going upwards, and when it goes it, it has to come down.

Govt regulation can either push the economy, make it rise and rise, make people go crazy taking risks in order to make themselves richer, or it can do what the Chinese are doing, which is trying to limit the grow, so that people don't get in such a frenzy, so growth is steady, things don't get overpriced, things don't go crazy. A steady economy where people can be secure in what they do, but not see such wild growth that makes then take crazy risks.

That is totally retarded. People invest year round, and there will always be above average risk takers.

But it takes more than just a good economy. It takes capitalization on a trend.

The housing bubble was a trend. People were buying houses one week and selling them the next week for huge profits.

The tech bubble was a trend. Eventually, everything astounding that was to be invited was, and that's when the bubble burst. Prior to that, the internet allowed people to become overnight millionaires. Because there was so much that could be done with the internet, many did invest every dime they had into it.

But one or two companies doing well in a good economy is nothing. Even one sector of the economy doing well isn't enough to crash any market.

Yes there will Ray. But it doesn't make it retarded just because you don't understand it.

But basically Ray I told you a simplistic version of why there was a problem with the economy doing well, and your responses show me you haven't understood a single thing of what I've said. So, until you understand the basics, there's no point in continuing to talk.

People take more risks in times when risks look more profitable.
People have a sheep mentality. When the stock market is going up, sheeple buy. When the stock market is going down, sheeple sell. When the stock market crashes, sheeple go into a selling frenzy. When the stock market soars, sheeple go into a frenzy too.

These are certain simple, basic, facts. People profit from such sheeple. They profit from the panics. They profit from the trends, as you've called them.

Do you agree with these basic facts?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Geee, I really feel stupid now. I'll try to do as you suggest:

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Ridiculous. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the recession, the housing crash did. It's was building for years before Bush even took office. It's what happens when GOVERNMENT regulates that banks give loans to people with no money or ability to repay. That's how people lost their homes.

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. Bush allowed the banks to get away with stuff that shouldn't have been happening. Bush wanted to pump the economy.

He pumped the economy.

That's what's happening now. People get more money, they see the economy doing well, they'll take out loans in order to try and make more money and the next recession will happen.

The limit of the presidential terms to 2 terms is killing the US, because it makes presidents put in short term measures to get elected the second time without having to think beyond 4 years.

No, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the housing crash.

First off, most people got a tax cut--not just the wealthy. Secondly, can you explain to me how allowing people to keep more of their money hurts the economy? None of you leftists have ever been able to give me the dynamics of that. If you get a raise at work, does that make you want to spend more money or less?

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Second. How does keeping more of their money hurts the economy. Yes, I can. Will you read it and understand it? Probably not.

There is a natural cycle within capitalism of boom and bust. In the 1930s unregulated capitalism led to the worst recession the US has ever seen.

Before this there was a speculative boom. People were investing. They saw the boom happening and they wanted to make it rich. People will take risks. Look at bitcoin today. People see the value rising massively, so they'll mortgage their house to buy bitcoin

People are taking out mortgages to buy bitcoin, says securities regulator

Well, what happens if bitcoin goes down? They've lost their house. They're taking the risks because the economy is going upwards, and when it goes it, it has to come down.

Govt regulation can either push the economy, make it rise and rise, make people go crazy taking risks in order to make themselves richer, or it can do what the Chinese are doing, which is trying to limit the grow, so that people don't get in such a frenzy, so growth is steady, things don't get overpriced, things don't go crazy. A steady economy where people can be secure in what they do, but not see such wild growth that makes then take crazy risks.

That is totally retarded. People invest year round, and there will always be above average risk takers.

But it takes more than just a good economy. It takes capitalization on a trend.

The housing bubble was a trend. People were buying houses one week and selling them the next week for huge profits.

The tech bubble was a trend. Eventually, everything astounding that was to be invited was, and that's when the bubble burst. Prior to that, the internet allowed people to become overnight millionaires. Because there was so much that could be done with the internet, many did invest every dime they had into it.

But one or two companies doing well in a good economy is nothing. Even one sector of the economy doing well isn't enough to crash any market.

Yes there will Ray. But it doesn't make it retarded just because you don't understand it.

But basically Ray I told you a simplistic version of why there was a problem with the economy doing well, and your responses show me you haven't understood a single thing of what I've said. So, until you understand the basics, there's no point in continuing to talk.

People take more risks in times when risks look more profitable.
People have a sheep mentality. When the stock market is going up, sheeple buy. When the stock market is going down, sheeple sell. When the stock market crashes, sheeple go into a selling frenzy. When the stock market soars, sheeple go into a frenzy too.

These are certain simple, basic, facts. People profit from such sheeple. They profit from the panics. They profit from the trends, as you've called them.

Do you agree with these basic facts?

The market has been going up for the last couple of years, and people are doing just fine. It's a moderately steady growth which is healthy. I quick unpredicted uptrend is what's troubling, and that's not what's happening today or the last couple of years.

Will it continue, of course not. At some time, it will stop growing and hover for a spell. Then it may go back up or down here and there.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Geee, I really feel stupid now. I'll try to do as you suggest:

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

You don't have a coherent reply. You made a claim and I proved it false using your very own words. Or are you going to do the liberal thing and now try to Clintonize what you said? Go ahead.......make my day.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich. Bush allowed the banks to get away with stuff that shouldn't have been happening. Bush wanted to pump the economy.

He pumped the economy.

That's what's happening now. People get more money, they see the economy doing well, they'll take out loans in order to try and make more money and the next recession will happen.

The limit of the presidential terms to 2 terms is killing the US, because it makes presidents put in short term measures to get elected the second time without having to think beyond 4 years.

No, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the housing crash.

First off, most people got a tax cut--not just the wealthy. Secondly, can you explain to me how allowing people to keep more of their money hurts the economy? None of you leftists have ever been able to give me the dynamics of that. If you get a raise at work, does that make you want to spend more money or less?

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Second. How does keeping more of their money hurts the economy. Yes, I can. Will you read it and understand it? Probably not.

There is a natural cycle within capitalism of boom and bust. In the 1930s unregulated capitalism led to the worst recession the US has ever seen.

Before this there was a speculative boom. People were investing. They saw the boom happening and they wanted to make it rich. People will take risks. Look at bitcoin today. People see the value rising massively, so they'll mortgage their house to buy bitcoin

People are taking out mortgages to buy bitcoin, says securities regulator

Well, what happens if bitcoin goes down? They've lost their house. They're taking the risks because the economy is going upwards, and when it goes it, it has to come down.

Govt regulation can either push the economy, make it rise and rise, make people go crazy taking risks in order to make themselves richer, or it can do what the Chinese are doing, which is trying to limit the grow, so that people don't get in such a frenzy, so growth is steady, things don't get overpriced, things don't go crazy. A steady economy where people can be secure in what they do, but not see such wild growth that makes then take crazy risks.

That is totally retarded. People invest year round, and there will always be above average risk takers.

But it takes more than just a good economy. It takes capitalization on a trend.

The housing bubble was a trend. People were buying houses one week and selling them the next week for huge profits.

The tech bubble was a trend. Eventually, everything astounding that was to be invited was, and that's when the bubble burst. Prior to that, the internet allowed people to become overnight millionaires. Because there was so much that could be done with the internet, many did invest every dime they had into it.

But one or two companies doing well in a good economy is nothing. Even one sector of the economy doing well isn't enough to crash any market.

Yes there will Ray. But it doesn't make it retarded just because you don't understand it.

But basically Ray I told you a simplistic version of why there was a problem with the economy doing well, and your responses show me you haven't understood a single thing of what I've said. So, until you understand the basics, there's no point in continuing to talk.

People take more risks in times when risks look more profitable.
People have a sheep mentality. When the stock market is going up, sheeple buy. When the stock market is going down, sheeple sell. When the stock market crashes, sheeple go into a selling frenzy. When the stock market soars, sheeple go into a frenzy too.

These are certain simple, basic, facts. People profit from such sheeple. They profit from the panics. They profit from the trends, as you've called them.

Do you agree with these basic facts?

The market has been going up for the last couple of years, and people are doing just fine. It's a moderately steady growth which is healthy. I quick unpredicted uptrend is what's troubling, and that's not what's happening today or the last couple of years.

Will it continue, of course not. At some time, it will stop growing and hover for a spell. Then it may go back up or down here and there.

Yes, the market has been going up for years, and yes the people are fine.

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. We're talking about the FUTURE and not the past.

I asked you if you agreed with those basic facts. You didn't mention the things I said.

Why would you write something completely different and ignore everything I said?

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Geee, I really feel stupid now. I'll try to do as you suggest:

Well Ray, the point I'm making here is that everything goes hand in hand.

Bush gave tax cuts to the rich.

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

You don't have a coherent reply. You made a claim and I proved it false using your very own words. Or are you going to do the liberal thing and now try to Clintonize what you said? Go ahead.......make my day.

You don't understand things, you don't read things, you don't do anything of that, then you try and take the high moral ground.

It gets very boring very quickly.

 

[AntonToo]

Like Walmart couldn’t afford that before with all of their profits. Conservatives are such suckers

If you knew anything about business you'd realize that profit is less a factor than growth

Thanks for conceding that net profit increasing tax-cuts for corporations has little to do with employment improvement.

Corporations hire who they need to hire and pay them as little as they can pay them - profits are not a factor in these equations.

Walmart employees could have gotten a serious raise if this blowjob to corporations bill also came with a side of $15 min wage.

$15.00 minimum wage would cause businesses to close, stop new businesses from opening, and cause such inflation it would kill our economy.

There is a balance between keeping stock prices up and employee wages. Companies try to do both, but favor investors over employees.

Employers have managed to endure increases for the costs of real estate, furniture, fixtures, supplies, utilities and every other aspect of their businesses low these past 30 years, and to pass along those increased costs in their pricing without loss of businesses.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at their lowest levels since the Guilded Age. Countries with higher minimum wages than the US are thriving in ways Americans are not and their businesses aren’t closing and new ones are opening all of the time.

Jursidictions where minimum wages have risen are seeing rapid growth, not the contraction you’re predicting.

We have four problems with supporting labor in the US: Automation, outsourcing, demand for cheap goods, and online shopping.

Now think for a moment what a national $15.00 minimum wage would do to each of these categories.

Psst unemployment is at right about 20 year low...wtf are you talking about?

Our main problem currently is that low and middle class hasn’t had a REAL raise in a very long time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If you knew anything about business you'd realize that profit is less a factor than growth

Thanks for conceding that net profit increasing tax-cuts for corporations has little to do with employment improvement.

Corporations hire who they need to hire and pay them as little as they can pay them - profits are not a factor in these equations.

Walmart employees could have gotten a serious raise if this blowjob to corporations bill also came with a side of $15 min wage.

$15.00 minimum wage would cause businesses to close, stop new businesses from opening, and cause such inflation it would kill our economy.

There is a balance between keeping stock prices up and employee wages. Companies try to do both, but favor investors over employees.

Employers have managed to endure increases for the costs of real estate, furniture, fixtures, supplies, utilities and every other aspect of their businesses low these past 30 years, and to pass along those increased costs in their pricing without loss of businesses.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at their lowest levels since the Guilded Age. Countries with higher minimum wages than the US are thriving in ways Americans are not and their businesses aren’t closing and new ones are opening all of the time.

Jursidictions where minimum wages have risen are seeing rapid growth, not the contraction you’re predicting.

We have four problems with supporting labor in the US: Automation, outsourcing, demand for cheap goods, and online shopping.

Now think for a moment what a national $15.00 minimum wage would do to each of these categories.

Psst unemployment is at right about 20 year low...wtf are you talking about?

Our main problem currently is that low and middle class hasn’t had a REAL raise in a very long time.

And it's up to government to give them that raise and not themselves? Should the government wipe our ass when we get off the toilet too???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Geee, I really feel stupid now. I'll try to do as you suggest:

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

You don't have a coherent reply. You made a claim and I proved it false using your very own words. Or are you going to do the liberal thing and now try to Clintonize what you said? Go ahead.......make my day.

You don't understand things, you don't read things, you don't do anything of that, then you try and take the high moral ground.

It gets very boring very quickly.

Just as I thought, you're now going to tell me that words in plain English are not what they said.

It's amazing how you leftists will never admit a mistake.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, it doesn't go hand-in-hand. The tax cuts had absolutely nothing to do with the housing crash.

First off, most people got a tax cut--not just the wealthy. Secondly, can you explain to me how allowing people to keep more of their money hurts the economy? None of you leftists have ever been able to give me the dynamics of that. If you get a raise at work, does that make you want to spend more money or less?

This is the problem isn't it Ray? You don't understand things.

I didn't say anything about WHO got the tax cuts. What I said was the tax cuts were part of pumping the economy.

You really should read and understand what people say, rather than just type.

Second. How does keeping more of their money hurts the economy. Yes, I can. Will you read it and understand it? Probably not.

There is a natural cycle within capitalism of boom and bust. In the 1930s unregulated capitalism led to the worst recession the US has ever seen.

Before this there was a speculative boom. People were investing. They saw the boom happening and they wanted to make it rich. People will take risks. Look at bitcoin today. People see the value rising massively, so they'll mortgage their house to buy bitcoin

People are taking out mortgages to buy bitcoin, says securities regulator

Well, what happens if bitcoin goes down? They've lost their house. They're taking the risks because the economy is going upwards, and when it goes it, it has to come down.

Govt regulation can either push the economy, make it rise and rise, make people go crazy taking risks in order to make themselves richer, or it can do what the Chinese are doing, which is trying to limit the grow, so that people don't get in such a frenzy, so growth is steady, things don't get overpriced, things don't go crazy. A steady economy where people can be secure in what they do, but not see such wild growth that makes then take crazy risks.

That is totally retarded. People invest year round, and there will always be above average risk takers.

But it takes more than just a good economy. It takes capitalization on a trend.

The housing bubble was a trend. People were buying houses one week and selling them the next week for huge profits.

The tech bubble was a trend. Eventually, everything astounding that was to be invited was, and that's when the bubble burst. Prior to that, the internet allowed people to become overnight millionaires. Because there was so much that could be done with the internet, many did invest every dime they had into it.

But one or two companies doing well in a good economy is nothing. Even one sector of the economy doing well isn't enough to crash any market.

Yes there will Ray. But it doesn't make it retarded just because you don't understand it.

But basically Ray I told you a simplistic version of why there was a problem with the economy doing well, and your responses show me you haven't understood a single thing of what I've said. So, until you understand the basics, there's no point in continuing to talk.

People take more risks in times when risks look more profitable.
People have a sheep mentality. When the stock market is going up, sheeple buy. When the stock market is going down, sheeple sell. When the stock market crashes, sheeple go into a selling frenzy. When the stock market soars, sheeple go into a frenzy too.

These are certain simple, basic, facts. People profit from such sheeple. They profit from the panics. They profit from the trends, as you've called them.

Do you agree with these basic facts?

The market has been going up for the last couple of years, and people are doing just fine. It's a moderately steady growth which is healthy. I quick unpredicted uptrend is what's troubling, and that's not what's happening today or the last couple of years.

Will it continue, of course not. At some time, it will stop growing and hover for a spell. Then it may go back up or down here and there.

Yes, the market has been going up for years, and yes the people are fine.

This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about. We're talking about the FUTURE and not the past.

I asked you if you agreed with those basic facts. You didn't mention the things I said.

Why would you write something completely different and ignore everything I said?

Apparently you say a lot of things that only you know the meaning of. Maybe that's the problem.

 

[AntonToo]

Thanks for conceding that net profit increasing tax-cuts for corporations has little to do with employment improvement.

Corporations hire who they need to hire and pay them as little as they can pay them - profits are not a factor in these equations.

Walmart employees could have gotten a serious raise if this blowjob to corporations bill also came with a side of $15 min wage.

$15.00 minimum wage would cause businesses to close, stop new businesses from opening, and cause such inflation it would kill our economy.

There is a balance between keeping stock prices up and employee wages. Companies try to do both, but favor investors over employees.

Employers have managed to endure increases for the costs of real estate, furniture, fixtures, supplies, utilities and every other aspect of their businesses low these past 30 years, and to pass along those increased costs in their pricing without loss of businesses.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at their lowest levels since the Guilded Age. Countries with higher minimum wages than the US are thriving in ways Americans are not and their businesses aren’t closing and new ones are opening all of the time.

Jursidictions where minimum wages have risen are seeing rapid growth, not the contraction you’re predicting.

We have four problems with supporting labor in the US: Automation, outsourcing, demand for cheap goods, and online shopping.

Now think for a moment what a national $15.00 minimum wage would do to each of these categories.

Psst unemployment is at right about 20 year low...wtf are you talking about?

Our main problem currently is that low and middle class hasn’t had a REAL raise in a very long time.

And it's up to government to give them that raise and not themselves? Should the government wipe our ass when we get off the toilet too???

Fuck that, corps got an effective raise from this government, so can workers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do you actually want a reply to this?

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

You don't have a coherent reply. You made a claim and I proved it false using your very own words. Or are you going to do the liberal thing and now try to Clintonize what you said? Go ahead.......make my day.

You don't understand things, you don't read things, you don't do anything of that, then you try and take the high moral ground.

It gets very boring very quickly.

Just as I thought, you're now going to tell me that words in plain English are not what they said.

It's amazing how you leftists will never admit a mistake.

You're boring me Ray. Bye.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, because you don't have any.

"The best thing about telling the truth is you never have to remember what you said."
Author unknown

What?

I said "Do you actually want a reply to this?" and you say "No, because you don't have any." Any what Ray? Replies? Well that's clearly not true. Other than that, I can't see what any would refer to.

And with your quote, are you trying to suggest you tell the truth? Seriously?

You don't have a coherent reply. You made a claim and I proved it false using your very own words. Or are you going to do the liberal thing and now try to Clintonize what you said? Go ahead.......make my day.

You don't understand things, you don't read things, you don't do anything of that, then you try and take the high moral ground.

It gets very boring very quickly.

Just as I thought, you're now going to tell me that words in plain English are not what they said.

It's amazing how you leftists will never admit a mistake.

You're boring me Ray. Bye.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

$15.00 minimum wage would cause businesses to close, stop new businesses from opening, and cause such inflation it would kill our economy.

There is a balance between keeping stock prices up and employee wages. Companies try to do both, but favor investors over employees.

Employers have managed to endure increases for the costs of real estate, furniture, fixtures, supplies, utilities and every other aspect of their businesses low these past 30 years, and to pass along those increased costs in their pricing without loss of businesses.

Wages, as a percentage of costs, are at their lowest levels since the Guilded Age. Countries with higher minimum wages than the US are thriving in ways Americans are not and their businesses aren’t closing and new ones are opening all of the time.

Jursidictions where minimum wages have risen are seeing rapid growth, not the contraction you’re predicting.

We have four problems with supporting labor in the US: Automation, outsourcing, demand for cheap goods, and online shopping.

Now think for a moment what a national $15.00 minimum wage would do to each of these categories.

Psst unemployment is at right about 20 year low...wtf are you talking about?

Our main problem currently is that low and middle class hasn’t had a REAL raise in a very long time.

And it's up to government to give them that raise and not themselves? Should the government wipe our ass when we get off the toilet too???

Fuck that, corps got an effective raise from this government, so can workers.

Government doesn't give raises to corporations. Only corporations can give themselves a raise.