Many of these guys think tax breaks increase jobs. It's true to some extent, but not enough to sustain it. Ideally you want a combination of tax breaks with increased opportunities because of market growth. People get hired, overseas, when businesses can't keep up with demand.
For instance, if I hire two people and I can keep up with jobs, tax breaks will only go into my pocket. But if market growth calls for a needed expansion, tax breaks gives me more flexibility to hire additional people. If I'm cash poor I might not be able to keep up with new demand and waste growth opportunities. It's a balance we need.
Crisped.
If they manufacture overseas. But lets be honest here. Most companies don't go overseas because of tax alone. They go overseas because of the combination of taxes and labor costs. If I can save $10/hour with a 2,000 employee manufacturing plant in Mexico vs the US, that's roughly 52 million dollars a year in savings. We could charge zero taxes, and it's hard to make up that difference.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. BrotherSibling, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. BrotherSibling, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
I didn't even read the thread - all I know is Kansas is one of, if not the most fucked up state in this union. Bunch of fucking mouthbreathing lying motherfuckers, not unlike the Seattle City Council but I digress.
Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.
The problem is that they teach in schools and promote economic thought that would work if you were playing legos and there were no variables involved. I majored in econ and it's all theory of how shit should work if the world was a test lab. Austrian economics or it's all bullshit.
Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.
The problem is that they teach in schools and promote economic thought that would work if you were playing legos and there were no variables involved. I majored in econ and it's all theory of how shit should work if the world was a test lab. Austrian economics or it's all bullshit.
+1
Loved my Econ major, taught me critical thinking and analysis skills, but the underlying assumption of rational behavior doesn't exist in the world. If I could go back in time I'd add in some behavioral economics.
Tax cuts are always great but these supply side economists are like religious zealots. They think tax cuts are the #1 answer and the only answer to everything. They were proclaiming how great the Bush economy was (private sector growth was actually the worst ever, weaker than Obama) literally a year before it fell off a cliff.
The problem is that they teach in schools and promote economic thought that would work if you were playing legos and there were no variables involved. I majored in econ and it's all theory of how shit should work if the world was a test lab. Austrian economics or it's all bullshit.
+1
Loved my Econ major, taught me critical thinking and analysis skills, but the underlying assumption of rational behavior doesn't exist in the world. If I could go back in time I'd add in some behavioral economics.
Exxxactly. I found most of the material very fascinating, especially issues dealing with consumer behavior and what motivates people to act in a certain way. Though I should have transferred to the von Mises Institute.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
Maybe the concept of a democratic republic is lost on many people.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.” — Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist & historian (quote credited)
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
Maybe the concept of a democratic republic is lost on many people.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.” — Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist & historian (quote credited)
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
Maybe the concept of a democratic republic is lost on many people.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
"It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. A degeneracy in these is a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution." — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.” — Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist & historian (quote credited)
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
If you think you have the right to what I earn and you think that's equitable that's how wars start. This is America. We used to be free. You have the right to work as much as you can and make all the money you can and to keep what you earn. You have a right to buy property, build and live freely with excessive government interference or control.
You have no right to free stuff, money food stamps, section 8, WIC, wealth redistribution, college tuition or anything your neighbor owns. Many of which were the result of republican thought but meant only for temporary use not generational support.
Wanting what your neighbor has is envy. This is the generation of envy. Driven by a political party of laziness and lack of ambition that thinks they are entitled to everything paid for by the work of others. Work and earn it that's what our f'ing country is all about!
For those that don't believe in these principals Cuba is only 90 miles away, it is a socialist workers paradise! Just ask all of the ones risking their lives to come here.
My brother (or siblings) does not live off my earnings nor should you.
War? War may well come when freedoms erode enough. Our forefathers thought there would be a revolution every 10-20 years. That's how much they feared a strong central government with the power to tax and take freedom at will.
If that war were to come you will not like the outcome and I wouldn't like the process.
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
If you think you have the right to what I earn and you think that's equitable that's how wars start. This is America. We used to be free. You have the right to work as much as you can and make all the money you can and to keep what you earn. You have a right to buy property, build and live freely with excessive government interference or control.
You have no right to free stuff, money food stamps, section 8, WIC, wealth redistribution, college tuition or anything your neighbor owns. Many of which were the result of republican thought but meant only for temporary use not generational support.
Wanting what your neighbor has is envy. This is the generation of envy. Driven by a political party of laziness and lack of ambition that thinks they are entitled to everything paid for by the work of others. Work and earn it that's what our f'ing country is all about!
For those that don't believe in these principals Cuba is only 90 miles away, it is a socialist workers paradise! Just ask all of the ones risking their lives to come here.
My brother (or siblings) does not live off my earnings nor should you.
War? War may well come when freedoms erode enough. Our forefathers thought there would be a revolution every 10-20 years. That's how much they feared a strong central government with the power to tax and take freedom at will.
If that war were to come you will not like the outcome and I wouldn't like the process.
Let's go back to the 50s then is what it sounds like you want. Before food stamps, section 8, wealth redistribution. Right?
Remember 90% tax rate over $100k? What decade was that again?
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
It's funny that when it's money going from the rich to the poor it's inciting class hatred but when it's the rich rigging the rules in their favor it's fine. When the rich fuck over the poor, when they destroy the middle class, that's cool. Ask the rich to give more because they have more and it's a war.
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
If you think you have the right to what I earn and you think that's equitable that's how wars start. This is America. We used to be free. You have the right to work as much as you can and make all the money you can and to keep what you earn. You have a right to buy property, build and live freely with excessive government interference or control.
You have no right to free stuff, money food stamps, section 8, WIC, wealth redistribution, college tuition or anything your neighbor owns. Many of which were the result of republican thought but meant only for temporary use not generational support.
Wanting what your neighbor has is envy. This is the generation of envy. Driven by a political party of laziness and lack of ambition that thinks they are entitled to everything paid for by the work of others. Work and earn it that's what our f'ing country is all about!
For those that don't believe in these principals Cuba is only 90 miles away, it is a socialist workers paradise! Just ask all of the ones risking their lives to come here.
My brother (or siblings) does not live off my earnings nor should you.
War? War may well come when freedoms erode enough. Our forefathers thought there would be a revolution every 10-20 years. That's how much they feared a strong central government with the power to tax and take freedom at will.
If that war were to come you will not like the outcome and I wouldn't like the process.
Let's go back to the 50s then is what it sounds like you want. Before food stamps, section 8, wealth redistribution. Right?
Remember 90% tax rate over $100k? What decade was that again?
Yeah a lot more deductions then. It was never paid at that rate. Remember democrat John Kennedy lowered taxes and the money poured in? He'd be called a right wing loon today.
And if you have, what makes you think anyone wants your single wide and your Pinto wagon?
Like a real flea I'm sure you suck the blood of the producers in our nation. I have more than one house and none of them have wheels. Oh but I do have an RV as well. I bet your Occupy Wall Street tent is the bomb though!
Comments
But here's the bigger problem with this diatribe, you call it the brotherhood of man (should be siblinghood of people) and then you refer to the poor as little and weak. You refer to the rich as big and strong. You imply that poor people lack the character of the rich because they're not rich. Brother, those are fighting words and it sounds like you are the one that wants the war.
That place is F-U-C-K-E-D.
Loved my Econ major, taught me critical thinking and analysis skills, but the underlying assumption of rational behavior doesn't exist in the world. If I could go back in time I'd add in some behavioral economics.
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”
— Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) Third President of the United States
“The average age of the world’s great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”
— Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813) Scottish jurist & historian (quote credited)
You have no right to free stuff, money food stamps, section 8, WIC, wealth redistribution, college tuition or anything your neighbor owns. Many of which were the result of republican thought but meant only for temporary use not generational support.
Wanting what your neighbor has is envy. This is the generation of envy. Driven by a political party of laziness and lack of ambition that thinks they are entitled to everything paid for by the work of others. Work and earn it that's what our f'ing country is all about!
For those that don't believe in these principals Cuba is only 90 miles away, it is a socialist workers paradise! Just ask all of the ones risking their lives to come here.
My brother (or siblings) does not live off my earnings nor should you.
War? War may well come when freedoms erode enough. Our forefathers thought there would be a revolution every 10-20 years. That's how much they feared a strong central government with the power to tax and take freedom at will.
If that war were to come you will not like the outcome and I wouldn't like the process.
And if you have, what makes you think anyone wants your single wide and your Pinto wagon?
Remember 90% tax rate over $100k? What decade was that again?