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.
Why dont we just send checks for $1M to every family in America? That way we'd all be rich!Allow me to speak for all Progressives (which is arrogant, but since you did...) and edit your remarks:
The Common Man has the right to end the exploitation of his/her labor by demanding an increase in the Minimum Wage, the right to organize and join with others to earn fair wages and benefits, and to strike for the same while petitioning the support of the public and his and her's political representatives.
Raise minimum wage to what? 100 bucks an hour 1000 bucks an hour? Why limit your goals to what amounts to petty change?
I have a question. Why are you working minimum wage? Around here we don't even pay high school kids minimum wage. Minimum wage means you are not worth more than the absolute minimum. It means you are taking the least valuable job around. It usually means that either something is wrong with you, that or you've never worked before and have to prove you are worth more than the minimum, which normally should only take a day or two. Of course if you raise minimum wage those useless people will get fired.
I have an idea, why not raise minimum wage to the same rates as ceos and executives receive?
According to conservatives the ceo isn't being paid too much money even though they're receiving hundreds of times more in pay than the workers get.
When the workers have money in their pockets they spend it. Which in turn creates demand which in turn drives the economy. The rich don't spend their money. They send it off to off shore accounts to avoid taxation. So we get to pay the taxes the rich don't pay. Or we borrow the money for future generations to pay off. With interest.
Business can supply all the goods and services they want. It's worthless if there's no one who can afford to buy their products.
Higher minimum wage causes higher standard of living and higher tax revenues to pay for needed programs and expenses of our nation. It also prevents us from having to give those workers welfare because their employer doesn't pay them enough to live on.
My state has the highest state minimum wage in the nation. We have a law here that requires that we have the highest state minimum wage in the nation. It's over 9 dollars an hour now. We have one of the highest standards of living in the nation and we have a lower unemployment rate than the national average. We also receive less federal dollars than we pay. The exact opposite of the red conservative states.
You people whine about welfare and assistance to people yet you don't want them to be able to make a living by their labor. You want to keep giving big business our tax dollars by way of food stamps and other public programs.
If the employer doesn't pay enough for people to live on then don't whine about welfare programs. Either you advocate for wages that sustain people or you stop whining about welfare. You can't have it both ways.
I for one, am sick and tired of my hard earned tax dollars being given to greedy rich people to make them even more richer.
Small business provides something like 80% of the jobs in America.
Small business isn't owned by the 1%. It's owned mostly by middle and upper middle income people. Not the rich.
The rich provide much fewer jobs than the middle class.
So bringing the "poor" into this is ridiculous and extreme. Insinuating that the rich provide most of the jobs in America is a lie.
No rich person ever gave me a job. A middle and upper middle class income person has always been the people I've worked for.
Anyone with income over 200,000 is "rich" under Obama. Most successful small business owners meet that threshold.
You're impressing everyone here with your stupidity and ignorance.
You are purposely conflating two concepts.
First of all, anyone making 50K is rich according to Democrats.
Second, most of the couples people I know make over 200K and are more likely to be attorneys and accountants with perhaps 1 or two employees, often enough the spouse.
Physicians who make 200K+ are in a group or work for a clinic or hospital and thus do not employ anyone themselves.
Try inserting a fact here and there.
Anyone with income over 200,000 is "rich" under Obama. Most successful small business owners meet that threshold.
You're impressing everyone here with your stupidity and ignorance.
You are purposely conflating two concepts.
First of all, anyone making 50K is rich according to Democrats.
Second, most of the couples people I know make over 200K and are more likely to be attorneys and accountants with perhaps 1 or two employees, often enough the spouse.
Physicians who make 200K+ are in a group or work for a clinic or hospital and thus do not employ anyone themselves.
Try inserting a fact here and there.
Irony alert.. Your personal experience does not count as "fact".
OK so you admit your personal experience is not evidence of anything.You are purposely conflating two concepts.
First of all, anyone making 50K is rich according to Democrats.
Second, most of the couples people I know make over 200K and are more likely to be attorneys and accountants with perhaps 1 or two employees, often enough the spouse.
Physicians who make 200K+ are in a group or work for a clinic or hospital and thus do not employ anyone themselves.
Try inserting a fact here and there.
Irony alert.. Your personal experience does not count as "fact".
And you constantly doing NOTHING but calling people "stupid" does not count as fact.
Hmmm...Time for you to pull GDP out of your ass again.
OK so you admit your personal experience is not evidence of anything.Irony alert.. Your personal experience does not count as "fact".
And you constantly doing NOTHING but calling people "stupid" does not count as fact.
Hmmm...Time for you to pull GDP out of your ass again.
I call people like you stupid because you are. You complain about facts and then post your opinion. I wonder if you evn know the difference.
Mowing lawns in wealthy neighborhoods really doesnt give you much to go on. When you call statistics bullshit you reveal your bias. You are driven, like most libs,by personal stories and emotion ahead of any demonstrable fact. This is what makes you a ninny.OK so you admit your personal experience is not evidence of anything.And you constantly doing NOTHING but calling people "stupid" does not count as fact.
Hmmm...Time for you to pull GDP out of your ass again.
I call people like you stupid because you are. You complain about facts and then post your opinion. I wonder if you evn know the difference.
My personal stories, based upon knowing a rather large group of people in various communities, and in rather prominent positions in financial firms, is far more valid than your Wall Street Journal rolled-up statistics bullshit.
And ALL you ever do is call people stupid.
You are an embarrassment.
Mowing lawns in wealthy neighborhoods really doesnt give you much to go on. When you call statistics bullshit you reveal your bias. You are driven, like most libs,by personal stories and emotion ahead of any demonstrable fact. This is what makes you a ninny.OK so you admit your personal experience is not evidence of anything.
I call people like you stupid because you are. You complain about facts and then post your opinion. I wonder if you evn know the difference.
My personal stories, based upon knowing a rather large group of people in various communities, and in rather prominent positions in financial firms, is far more valid than your Wall Street Journal rolled-up statistics bullshit.
And ALL you ever do is call people stupid.
You are an embarrassment.
You are in the business of matching a resource with the client "need".
You fill a super matrix with client supplied information, which obviously includes salary range.
You then use this over-bloated, "get me the cheapest resource you can find" info to contact, either by phone, text, e-mail or some automated system, the next H1-B from India.
Right there you show you know nothing about business. Business is not about cost, cost is just a variable. The goal is profit. We want the employee who maximizes profit. Ironically, you are the one who thinks workers are tools, they are interchangable, one is the same as another. You are wrong, comrade. Seldom is the cheapest employee the most profitable.
Since I double majored in Math and Computer Science and have a Masters in Computer Science & Applications in addition to my MBA, I agree, I can converse with them just fine.
Your car is in the parking lot because the technology exists to allow such...DUH!
Most businesses today fake their profits by cutting costs, not by coming up with some great product.
Big fucking deal, I also majored in the same shit and I can easily tell you that 99% of the H1-Bs coming across the ocean are producing failed projects left and right.
What's even worse is that you are obviously specifically "searching" for these inept Indians.
I've interviewed dozens of these clowns with Masters Degrees and they couldn't think their way out of a bathroom stall.
But I guess that's why every vendor wants to couple with Apple's engineers to actually get something done.
So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.
So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.
Or those companies could keep their employees and build more products. The incorrect assumption that some MBAs like you make is that there is a limited number of customers with a limited amount of wealth to spend. They assume that if they fire productive people said firings will result in better profit margin. They see people as a resource not as a productive human.
Most MBAs don't understand that a great Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in profit, where a shitty Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in costs. The concept of small great teams building products to be sold and make profit goes over the head of most MBAs like you. Instead you see head count as a number in a spreadsheet. No offense but that's what it looks like from my eyes.
Back at a Comdex in 95, I think it was, I talked to Bill, Woz, and a couple other engineers on this topic, off camera. We were chatting about this AI dog thing Bill was putting into windows, and some new game console they were starting to design and play around with. Somehow we got to the quantity over quality issue. They both agreed that the small tight team concept was better than the spreadsheet business model. Steve's retort was to shrug and say yeah good luck getting the wankers to give a crap about skill & innovation over profit. Bill's view was to using the small team model on new products and then manage revisions with large teams of 2nd tier folks. Steve winks at me and says yeah if you kept the teams smaller all the way through you wouldn't need big ass services teams for your bug riddled product in the field. Bill was like yeah but if it was bug free they wouldn't have to buy the next release would they.
You think .4% growth is terrific? US growth is higher than that, and it still sucks.
And if you charted it back to 1980 you would find the US economy grew the equivalent of the entire German economy in that time.
So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.
No, idiot. I'd rather be living in an economy of increasing efficiency where low paying jobs are exported and higher paying jobs in sales, service and marketing and plentiful. What about this do you not understand?
Right there you show you know nothing about business. Business is not about cost, cost is just a variable. The goal is profit. We want the employee who maximizes profit. Ironically, you are the one who thinks workers are tools, they are interchangable, one is the same as another. You are wrong, comrade. Seldom is the cheapest employee the most profitable.
Since I double majored in Math and Computer Science and have a Masters in Computer Science & Applications in addition to my MBA, I agree, I can converse with them just fine.
Most businesses today fake their profits by cutting costs, not by coming up with some great product.
Big fucking deal, I also majored in the same shit and I can easily tell you that 99% of the H1-Bs coming across the ocean are producing failed projects left and right.
What's even worse is that you are obviously specifically "searching" for these inept Indians.
I've interviewed dozens of these clowns with Masters Degrees and they couldn't think their way out of a bathroom stall.
But I guess that's why every vendor wants to couple with Apple's engineers to actually get something done.
You are so full of shit, you have no idea what you are talking about. It always amuses me how dim wits like you when you talk to people who do this for a living have no qualms about telling us how you know everything on a subject you obviously know nothing. Do you go to your doctor and tell him about medicine too?
Most businesses today fake their profits by cutting costs, not by coming up with some great product.
Big fucking deal, I also majored in the same shit and I can easily tell you that 99% of the H1-Bs coming across the ocean are producing failed projects left and right.
What's even worse is that you are obviously specifically "searching" for these inept Indians.
I've interviewed dozens of these clowns with Masters Degrees and they couldn't think their way out of a bathroom stall.
But I guess that's why every vendor wants to couple with Apple's engineers to actually get something done.
You are so full of shit, you have no idea what you are talking about. It always amuses me how dim wits like you when you talk to people who do this for a living have no qualms about telling us how you know everything on a subject you obviously know nothing. Do you go to your doctor and tell him about medicine too?
Excellent!
All emotion and no content.
You are so full of shit, you have no idea what you are talking about. It always amuses me how dim wits like you when you talk to people who do this for a living have no qualms about telling us how you know everything on a subject you obviously know nothing. Do you go to your doctor and tell him about medicine too?
Excellent!
All emotion and no content.
Emotion?
So you'd rather be clinging to a job with a company that has better options hoping they don't go out of business because they can't cut costs like their international competitors with few choices of other jobs for the same reason. Got it.
Or those companies could keep their employees and build more products. The incorrect assumption that some MBAs like you make is that there is a limited number of customers with a limited amount of wealth to spend. They assume that if they fire productive people said firings will result in better profit margin. They see people as a resource not as a productive human.
Strawman, and a bunch of crap. I don't think that at all, quite the reverse. And what you said is not what they talk about in business schools and it wasn't our attitude in management or management consulting either. You just don't know what you're talking about. My career was building new organizations and new capabilities. The cost of maintaining infrastructure reduces the money that can go to chasing new products and services.
Most MBAs don't understand that a great Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in profit, where a shitty Engineer can generate a hundred times his income rate in costs. The concept of small great teams building products to be sold and make profit goes over the head of most MBAs like you. Instead you see head count as a number in a spreadsheet. No offense but that's what it looks like from my eyes.
Free markets solve that. The ones who do realize that and pay the right price for the right employees win. In reality where many companies skimp even more though are people in the middle who understand both the business and IT. They try to get the business people to give the requirements directly to the IT people thinking it saves money, and so many projects fail.
Back at a Comdex in 95, I think it was, I talked to Bill, Woz, and a couple other engineers on this topic, off camera. We were chatting about this AI dog thing Bill was putting into windows, and some new game console they were starting to design and play around with. Somehow we got to the quantity over quality issue. They both agreed that the small tight team concept was better than the spreadsheet business model. Steve's retort was to shrug and say yeah good luck getting the wankers to give a crap about skill & innovation over profit. Bill's view was to using the small team model on new products and then manage revisions with large teams of 2nd tier folks. Steve winks at me and says yeah if you kept the teams smaller all the way through you wouldn't need big ass services teams for your bug riddled product in the field. Bill was like yeah but if it was bug free they wouldn't have to buy the next release would they.
Fair enough, but it's a pretty broad stroke discussion.
Come on Rabbi.....Tell us
Tell us the level JFK cut taxes to
Come on Rabbi, what was the tax rate after JFK 'cut" taxes?
Irrelevant.
Were rates higher or lower after the tax cut?
Effective or marginal?
The true cost of the 1964 tax cut is thus somewhat less than 1.6 percent, since part of the tax cut merely offset a tax increase assumed in the baseline. The proportion of the 1964 tax cut attributable to this factor is likely to be relatively small, however, because inflation was low in the early 1960s. Nonetheless, even using the 1.6 percent of GDP estimate, the Kennedy tax cut was somewhat smaller than the proposed Bush tax cut.
Second, the distribution of Kennedy tax cut was dramatically different from the proposed Bush tax cut. According to estimates of the Kennedy tax cut that the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation made at the time, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution received 18 percent of the personal income tax cut from the 1964 act, and the bottom 85 percent received 59 percent of the tax cut. The top 2.4 percent of the income distribution received 17.4 percent of the tax cut, and the top 0.4 percent of the income distribution received six percent of it. By contrast, under the proposed Bush personal income tax reductions, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution would receive only six percent of the tax cuts, and the bottom 80 percent of the distribution would secure 38 percent of the tax reductions. At the other end of the income spectrum, the top one percent of the distribution would receive 31 percent of the personal income tax cuts.*
The Kennedy tax cut thus differed significantly from the proposed Bush tax cut. It was both somewhat less expensive and much less unevenly distributed
The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01
Mowing lawns in wealthy neighborhoods really doesnt give you much to go on. When you call statistics bullshit you reveal your bias. You are driven, like most libs,by personal stories and emotion ahead of any demonstrable fact. This is what makes you a ninny.My personal stories, based upon knowing a rather large group of people in various communities, and in rather prominent positions in financial firms, is far more valid than your Wall Street Journal rolled-up statistics bullshit.
And ALL you ever do is call people stupid.
You are an embarrassment.
C'mon Rabbi, I'm certain an erudite individual such as yourself must be surrounded by successful Jewish business people.
Please share your experiences.
So you'd rather be "out of work" and living in an economy with a slightly higher growth rate short term that is making those profits based on moving jobs off shore. Got it.
No, idiot. I'd rather be living in an economy of increasing efficiency where low paying jobs are exported and higher paying jobs in sales, service and marketing and plentiful. What about this do you not understand?
ROFL service high paying... Sales and Marketing.. ROFL yeah cause sales and marketing are the top tier of American Know-how. Your an effing retard.
Translation: I am not capable of subtle thought, only black and white.Or those companies could keep their employees and build more products. The incorrect assumption that some MBAs like you make is that there is a limited number of customers with a limited amount of wealth to spend. They assume that if they fire productive people said firings will result in better profit margin. They see people as a resource not as a productive human.
Strawman, and a bunch of crap. I don't think that at all, quite the reverse. And what you said is not what they talk about in business schools and it wasn't our attitude in management or management consulting either. You just don't know what you're talking about. My career was building new organizations and new capabilities. The cost of maintaining infrastructure reduces the money that can go to chasing new products and services.
Free markets solve that. The ones who do realize that and pay the right price for the right employees win. In reality where many companies skimp even more though are people in the middle who understand both the business and IT. They try to get the business people to give the requirements directly to the IT people thinking it saves money, and so many projects fail.
Back at a Comdex in 95, I think it was, I talked to Bill, Woz, and a couple other engineers on this topic, off camera. We were chatting about this AI dog thing Bill was putting into windows, and some new game console they were starting to design and play around with. Somehow we got to the quantity over quality issue. They both agreed that the small tight team concept was better than the spreadsheet business model. Steve's retort was to shrug and say yeah good luck getting the wankers to give a crap about skill & innovation over profit. Bill's view was to using the small team model on new products and then manage revisions with large teams of 2nd tier folks. Steve winks at me and says yeah if you kept the teams smaller all the way through you wouldn't need big ass services teams for your bug riddled product in the field. Bill was like yeah but if it was bug free they wouldn't have to buy the next release would they.
Fair enough, but it's a pretty broad stroke discussion.
Make up your mind first you say it's straw man and crap then you say you agree with what I said. First you say you worked with companies to right size them through offshoring, now you say you worked with start ups to start them, then you claim the money the big companies save by killing jobs lets them start new stuff. I'm thinking you are a bit bipolar.
Free markets solve MBAs that are inept.. Yes that was my point.
Irrelevant.
Were rates higher or lower after the tax cut?
Effective or marginal?
The true cost of the 1964 tax cut is thus somewhat less than 1.6 percent, since part of the tax cut merely offset a tax increase assumed in the baseline. The proportion of the 1964 tax cut attributable to this factor is likely to be relatively small, however, because inflation was low in the early 1960s. Nonetheless, even using the 1.6 percent of GDP estimate, the Kennedy tax cut was somewhat smaller than the proposed Bush tax cut.
Second, the distribution of Kennedy tax cut was dramatically different from the proposed Bush tax cut. According to estimates of the Kennedy tax cut that the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation made at the time, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution received 18 percent of the personal income tax cut from the 1964 act, and the bottom 85 percent received 59 percent of the tax cut. The top 2.4 percent of the income distribution received 17.4 percent of the tax cut, and the top 0.4 percent of the income distribution received six percent of it. By contrast, under the proposed Bush personal income tax reductions, the bottom 40 percent of the income distribution would receive only six percent of the tax cuts, and the bottom 80 percent of the distribution would secure 38 percent of the tax reductions. At the other end of the income spectrum, the top one percent of the distribution would receive 31 percent of the personal income tax cuts.*
The Kennedy tax cut thus differed significantly from the proposed Bush tax cut. It was both somewhat less expensive and much less unevenly distributed
The Bush Tax Cut Is Now about the Same Size As the Reagan Tax Cuts - 4/19/01
JFK only suggested the cuts.
The cuts came in 1964 when LBJ was president.
It wasn't just cuts. Which is why the rich ended up paying more.
When the top rate was lowered, a lot of the loopholes that the rich used to not pay taxes were closed. Thus the rich started paying more in taxes.
That's not how the reagan tax cuts went. There were no closing of loopholes for the rich. There was almost a complete removal of tax deductions for everyone else though. The rich and big business got to keep most of their deductions while everyone else was left with just the personal deduction and deduction of mortgage interest only. Not only did the rich and big business get to keep those loopholes, more were created for them to be able to not pay taxes.
The removal of most of everyone else's deductions caused everyone but the rich and big business to pay more in taxes.
The bush boy just lowered the rate without closing loopholes too. While the top 1% saw millions in reductions in their tax obligation, everyone else got maybe a hundred dollars in reduction which was eaten up by the extremely high cost of energy and living in the bush boy years. At the same time the bush boy lowered the taxes on the rich and big business he was also creating more loopholes for big business and the rich to not just not pay taxes but to actually get rebates that are hundreds of millions of dollars.
