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.
I didn't say it was because he had too much money. It is because of too much inequality, everyone else has too little money. What we need is a strong middle class again. This is something both parties used to understand. How did republicans get so foolish to think massive inequality is good for an economy? Like I already posted, the countries with the most inequality have awful economies.
I didn't say it was because he had too much money. It is because of too much inequality, everyone else has too little money. What we need is a strong middle class again. This is something both parties used to understand. How did republicans get so foolish to think massive inequality is good for an economy? Like I already posted, the countries with the most inequality have awful economies.
That's exactly what you said. After all, what is income inequity? Income inequity means some people having much more money than others. And you stated the reason the restaurant failed is because of income inequity.
It is clear too much inequality slows an economy.
You said because he had too much. If he has 2 million dollars and everyone else has 1 million dollars inequality is not that large. But if he has 2 million dollars and everyone else has $10 then that is a lot of inequality. In both examples he has the same, it is not about him having too much.
It is clear too much inequality slows an economy.
It's not clear because you failed (repeatedly) to explain the dynamics of your theory.
What slows an economy down is lack of residual income. That is to say what people have left over after they pay the bills. If people don't have the money to spend on the extras, the economy does slow down because the economy depends on that residual income.
Whether the rich have most of the money or little of the money doesn't change what people have in residual income.
Things DumBama has done to restrict residual income:
Commie Care for one. Many people lost their employer health insurance which was a benefit they didn't pay taxes on. Now, we have to spend after tax money to buy our own insurance which in many cases is the cost of a house or a very expensive SUV. This is plus the fact that Commie Care also increased the minimum in which you could write medical expenses off.
Immigration: Bringing in people to do work for just about no pay lowers the income for all Americans. Without foreigners, businesses would have to increase wages to attract workers.
Attack on the tobacco industry. People who use tobacco are now paying almost double of what they paid for their product in the past. While you may not like smokers, they are still consumers who spend their residual income like anybody else. Government taking more away from them reduces circulation of money.
Social programs. As mentioned, we have one-third of our working age population not working. They have no residual income to contribute to society, therefore, getting people off of those programs would force them to create income which also creates new taxes. They would have more residual income to spend in the economy if not for being on public assistance.
You said because he had too much. If he has 2 million dollars and everyone else has 1 million dollars inequality is not that large. But if he has 2 million dollars and everyone else has $10 then that is a lot of inequality. In both examples he has the same, it is not about him having too much.
Then don't say that it has anything to do with inequity. Just say that other people don't have enough money to spend. At least that would be accurate.
When you site inequity, then what you are saying that indeed, it's because others have too much, and that's the reason others have too little.
Sure if they don't need clothes or other essentials for life.A tariff is a tax on imported goods. They do not tax people as was stated. The red text is wrong. The green text is correct.
Are you this clueless? When the goods arrive in the country, the cost of the Tariff will be added to the wholesale price, and the retailer will pass that increased cost onto the consumer.
The manufacturer will pay the tax to the US government and then recover it from the wholesaler, who will pass it along to the retailer, who will ultimately pass it along to the consumer.
Since manufacturing clothing, electronics, and low end goods is virtually all done outside of the US now, costs of basic consumer goods will skyrocket with absolutely no benefit to consumers. These jobs are gone. The manufacturing facilities and equipment no longer exists in the US. Support skills such as pattern making, cutting, and other skills have been lost and aren't easy to replace.
My mother used to say you can get more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Give these companies one-time tax breaks to bring the jobs home, and tax them heavily if they pull jobs out. Tariffs do it in such a way that consumers' end up worse off than they are now, which is not the goal.
I gave you the definition. You tried to skew it to fit your agenda. You are the one who is clueless. No one is forced to buy imported goods from China.
When have tariffs ever worked?
What essentials for life are produced ONLY in China? Come back later when you realize that you are lying.
If you think the US can produce all its own clothing you are a moron.
Again, when have tariffs ever worked? You avoid the question because they don't and never have.
You just don't seem to get simple concepts. In both examples the rich guy has the same amount. But one example there is lots of inequality and in the other there is less. The restaurant does better with less inequality for obvious reasons.
Sure if they don't need clothes or other essentials for life.Are you this clueless? When the goods arrive in the country, the cost of the Tariff will be added to the wholesale price, and the retailer will pass that increased cost onto the consumer.
The manufacturer will pay the tax to the US government and then recover it from the wholesaler, who will pass it along to the retailer, who will ultimately pass it along to the consumer.
Since manufacturing clothing, electronics, and low end goods is virtually all done outside of the US now, costs of basic consumer goods will skyrocket with absolutely no benefit to consumers. These jobs are gone. The manufacturing facilities and equipment no longer exists in the US. Support skills such as pattern making, cutting, and other skills have been lost and aren't easy to replace.
My mother used to say you can get more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. Give these companies one-time tax breaks to bring the jobs home, and tax them heavily if they pull jobs out. Tariffs do it in such a way that consumers' end up worse off than they are now, which is not the goal.
I gave you the definition. You tried to skew it to fit your agenda. You are the one who is clueless. No one is forced to buy imported goods from China.
When have tariffs ever worked?
What essentials for life are produced ONLY in China? Come back later when you realize that you are lying.
If you think the US can produce all its own clothing you are a moron.
Again, when have tariffs ever worked? You avoid the question because they don't and never have.
Tariffs worked for close to two hundred years in this country. They protected manufacturing and other industries so the America could become the greatest country in the world.
You just don't seem to get simple concepts. In both examples the rich guy has the same amount. But one example there is lots of inequality and in the other there is less. The restaurant does better with less inequality for obvious reasons.
Only if we lived in a country that liberals made up.
In our country, it doesn't matter how much other people have, that's why income inequity is meaningless. If the millionaire goes to that restaurant, and reads the paper finding out he lost a lot of money to the point he's no longer a millionaire, then how does that help the restaurant?
It doesn't because no matter how much he has, made, or lost, it doesn't bring anymore people into the restaurant. It didn't in the past and it won't in the future.
So forget the millionaire, and let's say the government lowered taxes on middle-class people, cut our social programs so only those who have no choice be on them, closed the borders so nobody legal or illegal gets in, deported all the illegals we have now, and people were forced to work or die, that's when the restaurant would see more customers.
Again, income inequity is based on the failed concept that we live in a bubble, and in our bubble there is only so much money. The reason some have too little is because in our bubble, others have too much. That's nothing but a lie. Money is nearly endless in our country, and anybody can make money here. Nobody was ever denied a raise from their employer, a loan from the bank, or profit from an investment because the rich people have too much money. It's never happened.
Immigration: Bringing in people to do work for just about no pay lowers the income for all Americans. Without foreigners, businesses would have to increase wages to attract workers.
If you Moon Bats don't like Wal Mart then don't shop there.
If you are a Wal Mart employee and you don't like the money you are making then you should go work for someplace else.
If you are an American that don't like welfare (like me) then you stop voting for the stupid Libtards that give out the welfare in exchange for votes.
$7;25×40×52=15,080
According to MSNBC the US government then kicks in another $5,800
None
So if walmart didn't exists the us welfare system would be paying 20 grand per person instead of 6 grand per person.
This is how weird people like you are.
If a manufactuer moves off shore for cheaper labor rates, you cant say enough how pursuits of corporate profit is everything. And you so understand how they could do that. What with unions and everything.
Let a company import cheap labor and all of a sudden thats terrible.
What the fuck?
If you Moon Bats don't like Wal Mart then don't shop there.
If you are a Wal Mart employee and you don't like the money you are making then you should go work for someplace else.
If you are an American that don't like welfare (like me) then you stop voting for the stupid Libtards that give out the welfare in exchange for votes.
Wow, you sure have no answers. Keep preaching the same crap that got us in this mess. The world has changed and you seem to have stayed behind.
If you Moon Bats don't like Wal Mart then don't shop there.
If you are a Wal Mart employee and you don't like the money you are making then you should go work for someplace else.
If you are an American that don't like welfare (like me) then you stop voting for the stupid Libtards that give out the welfare in exchange for votes.
Yes I do have an answer but you are smart enough to understand it.
If the government would get out of the business of welfare and if it would get off the backs of the job producers in this country then the free market of labor would correct any inefficiencies we see.
You Moon Bats are really dunmbasses. You elect big government assholes that screw up free market capitalism that produce real jobs and real wealth and then you bitch about the consequences.
If you Moon Bats don't like Wal Mart then don't shop there.
If you are a Wal Mart employee and you don't like the money you are making then you should go work for someplace else.
If you are an American that don't like welfare (like me) then you stop voting for the stupid Libtards that give out the welfare in exchange for votes.
And the funny thing is, the people you vote for will keep creating the economic conditions that REQUIRE a welfare state. That they will keep making you pay for because hey, those rich people are too busy buying Dancing Horses.
