Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Repukes are wrong! The Wealthy don't create jobs...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:18 PM
Original message
Repukes are wrong! The Wealthy don't create jobs...
It is the demand for goods and services that create jobs. The best way to increase demand for goods and services
is to have more people with the money to buy those goods and services.

Yet, when was the last time you heard our Democrat politicians pointing out this major flaw in Repuke thinking?

Quit talking about whose tax cuts are better, lay it out why tax cuts for the working class are better than tax cuts for the wealthy!

Next time you have a discussion with a repuke, ask them who creates jobs.
Ask them "When was the last time a wealthy person created a job out of the goodness of their heart?"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
rateyes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Exactly. Thank you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Canuckistanian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
2. Yes, exactly, DEMAND
And demand is created only one way- by giving the lower and middle classes more money in their pockets.

Isn't this the reason for the 'stimulus checks'?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
3. Yeah, Dems Ususally Suck At This
We really need to better articulate the case for the progressive tax system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Chulanowa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. Dems are terrified of being labeled "socialist"
Which is more a consequence of our nation's utter bastardization of the meaning of socialism during the cold war than anything.

Plus there's a particular mania among Americans - most of us apparently cling to the idea that someday we'll be in the top 1% ourselves, and so tax cuts for the rich are good, because we'll be there someday, right? Thus the popularity of cash drains on hte poor, like the lottery, Publisher's Clearinghouse, etc.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #23
31. Rightly So
but hey, what's socialist about wanting good roads, good schools and adequate police and fire protection?

I like being able to borrow books from the library for free. One of my co-workers never uses the library, but likes the dog park. I don't have a dog, but he helps pay for my library, so I help pay for his dog park.

I want well-maintained roads on which to travel and synchronized traffic lights so a ten mile trip doesn't take an hour. If I could ride a bike, I would want bike lanes because they seem safer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
4. Oh, I don't know. When the wealthy stick their geld into Lichtenstein banks...
...in order to avoid paying US taxes, that creates jobs for a few Liechtensteiners.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Zero Division Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:24 PM
Response to Original message
5. Said simply and correctly, thank you.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. It's labor that creates wealth, NOT vice versa!
They're a despicable lot that peddle such blatant falsehoods.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kitty Herder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
33. Yep.
Why do so many Americans so often forget that basic truth?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FKA MNChimpH8R Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. Lincoln understood
Too bad Lincoln is just a name in the history books to modern Repukes:

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.
-- Abraham Lincoln

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kentuck Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #41
71. One of my favorite quotes.
Excellent!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NashVegas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
7. Wealthy People Do TOO Create Jobs
If one guy can convince 25 or more people to labor at a task in exchange for 10 dollars each (cost: $250) and sell the products of that task for $500 & pocket the difference, he's on his way to becoming wealthy.

See! He created 25 jobs! A true American hero!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. The point is, in a severe recession he or she can't
sell the products for double, knows it, and so won't pay a bunch of people to make the stuff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. And that is why there's so much criticism of McCain in the corporate media.
Edited on Tue Oct-21-08 01:52 PM by Marr
It's very unusual for a Republican candidate to face any kind of examination of their character or policies. I think it's a manifestation of that much-talked-about rift between the GOP's corporate faction and it's ideological and religious factions.

These people know they've robbed about as much as they can, and now they're ready to back off. Any further robbery will result in a net loss for themselves via depression. The corporate faction wants to exploit the machine, they don't want to break it. The other two factions couldn't care less so long as their ideology is advanced.

The McCain campaign really ceased to have any influence on the news cycle right when the economic crisis came to the fore. It's conventional wisdom that the economy just overpowered the GOP political attacks in the mind of the public, and that's probably true on some level. But I think it was more about the economic establishment removing the McCain campaign's hand from the media rudder out of self interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #7
61. If that $500 "thing" is something there is no demand for. . .all he has
done is wasted the labor the 25 that people loaned him "on spec". . labor they could have expended in more profitable pursuits.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #61
74. Huh? He/she has to pay the labor while they work,
and knowing that, the production wouldn't have occurred in the first place. "Market research" is done before starting all large businesses and most small ones.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dont_Bogart_the_Pretzel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:31 PM
Response to Original message
8. Your right,
I used to work with a Repuke, she said "When was the last time a Democrat President created jobs?" :eyes: This was during BigDog's Two Term.

I thought she was a smart women and I respected her...... until this. I know it was bad policy to ignore management, but I couldn't believe her any more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
louis-t Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:40 PM
Response to Original message
9. My take is always:No company "expands thier business..
creates jobs, grows the economy" unless they are selling their product. I don't care how much money you give them. Works every time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ogneopasno Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. If tax cuts are teh awesome, why has the economy been shedding jobs for the past few years?
Labor creates all wealth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
machI Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 05:33 AM
Response to Reply #10
52. Tax cuts are not the answer, Tax Incentives are what is needed
When the Government influences the way wealth is invested, everyone has the opportunity to benefit.

Make it simple. Tell the Rich 'invest in this industry and get a tax break or invest elsewhere and pay 75%.'

With the proper Tax Incentives, clean renewable energy would enjoy a funding base of unbelievable proportions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
11. You can also refer to this thread when they bring up their other fave canard:
"Tax th' wealthy and they'll won't create them jawbs 't their companeez!"

Um . . . Bullshit. And . .. yeah, Bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
12. Fear of Offending Corporate Donors
prevents them from stating the obvious. I was disappointed by Obama's response in the last debate to the Joe-the-plumber meme. I kept thinking, when is he going to say, "Joe-the-plumber is not going to want to buy his boss's business if very few have money for his services. Small business start-ups can only succeed when enough people can afford to patronize them."?

Rich people always tell the economists currying favor w/them that they want tax cuts to expand and thrive, when in reality they just resent parting with any money that's come into their sphere. Those economists, like Austan Goolsbee and Jason Furman, are only too happy to propogate the lie for them. I think the ultra-wealthy must be laughing at them amongst themselves.

Politicians, who for the most part are not economically savvy, tend to think that economists traveling in the orbit of the ultra-wealthy are smarter than those shunned by them. Even Stiglitz, with a Nobel Prize, is seen by politicians as out-of-the-loop. It's a variation of, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?". Obama didn't discover demand-side reality until a former Reagan and Bush advisor was willing to admit it. It would behoove all Democratic politicians to pay more attention to which economists' theories have a track record of working in the real world, instead of who they are palling around with. For instance, who has been espousing demand-side economics all along?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrcheerful Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
13. Because americans in general can't grasp that simple ideal
to them all businesses make money, little thought is given to customers, unless it's having a sales clerk wish them a merry xmas, then the customer matters. I can't begain to tell you how many times I have heard people say a business failed not because of lack of customers but because the business owner screwed the business up by ripping himself off or mis-management. Then they say if I had been running the failed business it would have made profits, without a thought that they need customers to sell their products to.

Look at the big 3 auto makers, in the 40's 50's and 60's they had more customers then products, then Nixon trade agreement with Japan brought in cheap auto's that barely met US standards and people started buying them. US auto makers couldn't produce cheap cars because of the US safety standards that were placed on them by their government, so the easiest way for them to increase profits, in the short term, was laying off workers. There was a draw back though, it was the US auto worker that bought the product and the big 3 lost its customer base.

Then along came Reagan, with his anti-union, blame the union for the auto makers for the high prices of US auto's. It wasn't the wages of the workers driving up the prices, it was because now the big 3 found themselves building more cars then they could sell, so more lay offs to increase profit at the loss of even more customers. Then government bailouts and tax crap started, the big 3 learned they could make more money by not having profits for government to tax them on and the big 3 started running the business in the red, which meant stock holders still made money even though the business was failing.

Watch Roger and Me by M. Moore again, you can see how trickle down economics really worked in the 80's. It still amazes me that people 20 years later still believe that businesses don't need customers, even some of the GM workers who suffered through the Reagan years, remember 80% of them got called back to work in the 90's and are now retired. It's like those years never happened and Reagans trickle down bull shit worked. Mind blowing at the best.

Btw, many of those made it through the Reagan years on welfare and they hate welfare because of the bull shit they went through to get on it and stay on it, so they hate welfare, only they blame welfare receivers for the problem, not the welfare system. Again, mind blowing that people are able to blame the little guys instead of those who made the system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SammyWinstonJack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Great post!
:thumbsup: Hey freeps, you should read this, really, you should.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. Thank you.
It's amazing how simple the concept is, isn't it?

So why don't more people say things like this. I get so frustrated sometimes.

Anyway, thanks again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I don't think it's americans can't grasp the simple concept
I think it's more along the lines that the concept hasn't been explained in simple turns so anybody can understand it.

People are always trying to communicate ideas without explaining why. Explain why while explaining it using the KISS theory.

Then even Repukes would grasp the concept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
27. Yep, that was also touched upon in the threads above I link to.
The upper 5% of wealth are doing no worse now than they did back when the top income tax rate was 90%. Any robust economy is driven by a middle/working class that's gainfully employed (like, for instance, the middle part of the Clinton years). When corporate tax rates are lower, businesses feel no great need to hire, thus creating large profits and cash stores but a "jobless recovery" in the process (like, for instance, the Bush years. Or the Reagan years).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. You meant "doing no better now"
Edited on Tue Oct-21-08 07:14 PM by clear eye
"than they did back when the top income tax rate was 90%." I've been telling people that the ultra-wealthy can grab the whole pie for themselves, as the top few do in banana republics, but in the process, they are shrinking the pie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redder4 Donating Member (44 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 12:58 PM
Response to Original message
15. Stock market GAINS under DEMs 7 to 1, says it all
there's a chart I added to my blog that shows this..found it this weekend..so my thinking is democrats build wealth

http://politicaloasis.blogspot.com/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:19 PM
Response to Original message
18. Even more important than tax cuts for the working class,
Edited on Tue Oct-21-08 01:23 PM by CrispyQGirl
are good paying jobs for the working class. A healthy middle class is the engine of our economy.

I went to lunch with a friend Sunday. This friend is fairly well off. Her husband owns his own business a direct mail business that sends out coupon books, most of which are for home improvements new windows, decks, landscaping, etc.

She told me they are both undecided. I asked her if there was a reason why she was undecided. Obama is going to raise our taxes. Last year we paid $80k in taxes & I dont want to pay more.

So I thought for a moment & then I said, Think about this. Youre worried about your taxes going up. But if our economy tanks, we are going to continue to lose jobs. As that happens, there will be fewer people making home improvements. Your customers, the ones providing those services, are going to have to cut back, including sending coupons to people who can no longer afford to use them. Your husband's business will suffer & that will cost you much more than any increase in taxes.

I hadnt thought of it that way, she said.

I can only hope that a different perspective may sway her to vote for Obama.

The repubs have very successfully instilled in people, a deep resentment of paying taxes.

on edit: In his book "Where Have All the Leaders Gone?" Lee Iacocca suggests that when you hear the term "tax & spend liberals" you should fire back with "tax-cut & spend conservatives." :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I liked the way you asked the question.
If you ask them questions, they aren't challenged and are more receptive to the ideas.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #18
32. I always say "borrow & steal Republicans"
and have said that for at least 25 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CrispyQ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. That's good too,
& a little more accurate too!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TxBlue Donating Member (472 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
22. Doh! More Repugs' false premises. That's exactly correct.
Edited on Tue Oct-21-08 01:52 PM by TxBlue
Obama's plan to give tax credits back to companies that create jobs here makes sense.

Repugs plans to give more socialism to the wealthy helps the wealthy and no one else.

Some guy from Chickasha, Ok came into store the other day and said:

Water runs downhill but money runs uphill.

Thought that was a good one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
24. this is a chicken or the egg argument
while it is certainly true that the demand for goods and services drive the creation of jobs and that demand comes across economic lines.

it is also equally true that those with (or have access to) capital are best in a position to respond to those demands by being able to source the necessary equipment and physical locations to employ the worker.

like i said: chicken or the egg.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. That is what the republiks would like you to believe, however it is not true.
Let's see what the most famous Republik of all said about that myth...

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abe Lincoln in his first inaugural address.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
29. what sort of magic
creates the:

raw materials?
the tools?
the facilities?
the distribution mechanism?

or does this all just magically materialize?

in Lincoln's pre-industrial revolution economy it was far easier to manufacture items as the capital intensive equipment was less a necessity than was a person's manual skill but in today's economy having (or having access to) capital is an absolute imperative.

take as an example something that I have been kicking around (at least until the economy and credit markets tanked): I want to open up a corner bar/restaurant: My capital equipment costs alone I estimate at $150K...I don't know about you but that ain't exactly walking around pocket change...I need to have (or have access to) that plus another $100K or so to get it off the ground...not matter how much demand there is for my service.

OTOH, no matter how much I am willing to put into the business, I can't sell my product/service without demand...

chicken or the egg, which came 1st?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Raw materials are from the earth and all the rest comes from labor.
Thanks for playing.

Just because someone has been stealing from the same store year after year doesn't mean the thieves own the store.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #30
59. then riddle me this batman:
take as an example something that I have been kicking around (at least until the economy and credit markets tanked): I want to open up a corner bar/restaurant: My capital equipment costs alone I estimate at $150K...I don't know about you but that ain't exactly walking around pocket change...I need to have (or have access to) that plus another $100K or so to get it off the ground...not matter how much demand there is for my service.

how do you address that, specific and personal, situation?

Because there is demand for a place to eat out and drink a few in a place other than home does that somehow magically make a restaurant spring forth from the earth?

how about the inventory to serve the demand?
the glassware to serve the demand?
the equipment to cook, store and deliver the finished product to the customer?
the building in which to house said corner gin mill?
the staff to serve?

newsflash: all of that costs money and unless you have the money (or access to the money) you can't just sprinkle magic pixie dust and *pop* it appears. (at least not in reality world)

it takes an amalgamation of the 2: demand and supply to make a successful business that creates jobs...one can't exist without the other. believing otherwise (especially in a narrow ideological way) is naive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #59
65. You are apparently saying that because the currency system has been hijacked, it is inevitable
that the theft continue? :wtf:

You say it is a chicken-egg conundrum because capital and labor have been separated and capital has perversely been assigned as superior in a system that has failed primarily because labor and capital have been separated and capital declared superior.

Labor is, capital is a product of labor. Labor is substance, capital is a means of exchange. The entire world outside Amerika understands this, why is it so hard here?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #65
68. No, the entire world outside does not understand this
Sorry.

In an industrialized nation, capital is very badly needed. Or do you think you could round up 200 folks to invest in your small venture? Guess what? You just found folks ready to capitalize your business venture!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #68
73. Well it took me all of 5 minutes on the Googly to find that not only is
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 10:28 AM by greyhound1966
the assertion that labor is superior to and precedes capitalism false, but that nearly every winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics agrees(Including Krugman, the most recent winner) also disagrees. So that puts you squarely in the corner of a small group of neo-fascists whose theories have been proved wrong in every single case that they've been tried.

Here are a few more links to start you off.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/goldstein/goldcap.html
http://www.monthlyreview.org/labormon.htm
http://www.sagehistory.net/gildedage/capitalandlabor.ht...
http://learner.org/biographyofamerica/prog17/index.html


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #73
75. I DIDN'T SAY that labor was superior or that capital was superior
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 10:43 AM by fed_up_mother
In truth, labor and and those who capitalize labor have a symbiotic relationship. You really can't have one without the other for some businesses and industries.

And the problem in the U.S. is the devaluation of labor. I'm sure we both agree on that.

ETA - I glanced at your links. They prove my point - that capital and labor have a symbiotic relationship. Unless you want to move to a complete government takeover of all manufacturing, business, etc (which is not a workable model), there will always be a need for LABOR AND CAPITAL for most ventures. Sometimes, folks can capitalize their own business, but other times the need for capital must be raised through investors and/or loans.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #75
76. I want to move to a complete government take over of our currency system as it was intended.
I think the greatest source of conflict on this issue is the conflation of financial and currency systems. We have allowed a perversion that hurts everybody except those that own the system.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #76
78. Ummm.... even with government banks you still need capital and labor
Do you think that government bank is going to lend you 3 million dollars without some kind of collateral? Or are you supporting the government takeover of the entire economy - all industry and business? Because it DOESN'T WORK.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #78
82. Of course, the difference is the motivation.
A governmentally controlled currency is issued because there is demand and a viable plan to meet that demand, the review process determines whether or not the capital is provided, there is no consideration of profit on the part of the capital provider, since the purpose is to foster growth and production.

Do you suppose that when "our government" was handing out free land to the railroads they were getting fees or demanding compensation for those who's land they took? Again, we are talking about two different things and the system you appear to advocate is fundamentally flawed from a societal POV as it causes and feeds off of insecurity through the inevitable boom-bust cycle, hurting all for the benefit of a very few.

To get back to the topic, labor exists without regard to whether or not capital exists (finance) in the form we have now, capital does not, ergo labor precedes capital.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #82
85. Labor precedes capital only if you are working for yourself or for free.
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 11:58 AM by fed_up_mother
It's a symbiotic relationship between labor and capital. Always has been as soon as you get beyond the simplest of businesses.

And the land was there for the taking. An entire continent was taken away from the Native Americans. There was plenty of it. On the other hand, you don't just print money without regard to inflation.

And which country's current model are you proposing to emulate, by the way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:21 PM
Response to Reply #85
88. Do you live in FL or TX? n/t
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 12:22 PM by greyhound1966
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #88
89. Mind if I ask how that is pertinent to this topic?
Are you gay, hetero, or bi?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #75
81. I think there is a confusion between "capital" and "the wealthy"
building on this thread. They are not synonymous. Capital doesn't have to come from the wealthy. There are smaller banks and credit unions who get most of their capital from the middle class, and who can provide business loans up to a point. As you mentioned, government can as well. Yes, very large enterprises usually start-up need start-up capital from the wealthy if they are not a spin off from a large firm, but they are not "most ventures". Most jobs in mega-corporations are created or eliminated by expansion or contraction of already existing operations, not by start-ups and failures, are self-financing, and are in direct response to demand.

So saying that business needs capital, is not the same as saying "the wealthy" provides it. Everytime a middle-class person buys a good or service, that person is providing potential capital to the business he/she is patronizing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #81
84. Right. Accumulated wealth represent a loss of economic function.
Small businesses (<500 employees) still employs a sizable majority of Americans and is still the engine that drives (drove?) our economy, this mindset that huge organizations are efficient, the source of wealth, or even necessary, is hurting us badly.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:56 AM
Response to Reply #81
86. Thanks!
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 11:57 AM by fed_up_mother
As you say, up to a point capital can be gotten from banks and credit unions, but only up to a point. Without collateral, you won't get much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poseidan Donating Member (630 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #29
55. evidently, you need both the chicken and the egg
Like with proper evolution, the resources started out coagulating. They formed the first organisms. In other words, you could take out a loan or form a partnership to get your business started... but no demand means no business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
melm00se Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:54 AM
Response to Reply #55
60. congratulations!!!
we have a winner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #26
40. Are you sure that is found in Lincoln's first inauguarl address
I have just reread that speech and do not find the quote you cite in the final version of the First Inaugural address. The only reference to labor that I can find in that speech is in paragraph six "delivering up of fugitives from service or labor." A second referece to labor is found in para 7 "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws therof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of an law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." I could find no reference to "Capital" in Lincolns address either. Which paragraph of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address is you quote located?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cerridwen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 10:39 PM
Response to Reply #40
46. Correct quote - wrong speech cited.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thothmes Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #46
98. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Greyhound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #40
66. Ya gotta love DU.
Where else is fact checking done so well and with such competence?

My mistake.
:kick:


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. No, it's a question of which type of stimulus works
to actually improve the economy. No matter how equivalent the arguments may sound in the abstract, economic history is unequivocatl about which really works. Over and over and over, every single time.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 09:46 AM
Response to Reply #24
67. Thank you for some common sense. Without capital, who would fund large factories & plants
Even in the USSR, money was needed for factories. They didn't just sprout up on their own!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #67
83. Umm, their customers? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 08:33 AM
Response to Reply #83
106. Factories are built before sales are generally made
You have 300 million dollars lying around to build a factory?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #24
92. No it's not! Not even close.
Jobs are created because there is a demand for goods and services. Without the demands for those goods and services, no jobs are created.
Wealth is created and capital is made available once there is a demand for the goods and services so that the company/investors can make a profit.

No business has ever created a job without there being a need for the job. Can you name one?

Do you really think investors would invest in a company if there wasn't demand for a good or service?
Even investors in startup companies look for the market potential (potential demand) before investing in the startup.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
25. Kind of misguided there
Yes, the demand for goods and services creates the DEMAND for new jobs. But it doesn't -- in and of itself -- create the new jobs. That takes either someone with an existing business to create a new job, or someone to start a new business. It doesn't necessarily mean a wealthy person, but it does mean someone who has control over a business to create a new job.

Also, who said anything about having to create a new job out of the goodness of their heart? That's not a requirement. It just has to be a new job. Doesn't have to be done out of goodness. In fact, it's not. It's done to try to make a profit.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 08:17 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. Actually demand does do that in and of itself.
"Demand" by definition means a populace prosperous enough to pay for things, and even to save for retirement. Even without the ultra-wealthy, it would be possible for banks (barring ruinous theft by management) to assemble venture capital. (Not that it will ever actually be done solely like that.) On the other hand, when you get a few people managing to grab all a country's resources in every available form, you end up with an impoverished banana republic.

You miss the point about not creating jobs out of the goodness of one's heart. What the poster was saying was that, since people only create jobs to make a profit, they have to see a reasonable chance of doing so (demand) before they'll go ahead with the enterprise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #38
56. I don't understand
Demand does not create jobs. Demand is simply the demand, i.e., the wanting of a good or service. It then takes an industrious person/company to create the job to produce the good/service to fill that demand. So I don't understand when you say that demand does create jobs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #56
70. To Clarify
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 10:14 AM by clear eye
"Demand" in economic terms is more than desire for a good or service. Everybody might desire a cleaning person twice a week, but the demand for biweekly cleaning services is only the portion of people who feel the cost of the service at the offered price fits in their budget and who would prefer to buy that than spend the money on something else. So the definition of "demand" includes a certain level of prosperity.

The OPer was talking about what actions a government should take to increase jobs. There are two philosophies on this. The neo-cons, and to some extent the conservatives before that, consistently claim that only stimulus to the "supply" side of the economy by reducing taxes on the profits of business and the ultra-wealthy and giving them no-strings-attached grants will increase job production. Starting with Reagan, the Republican Presidents have aggressively acted in keeping with this and it failed every time, bringing rising unemployment and a shrinking economy. Just as bad, attempting to fill the bottomless pit of the mega-corporations' (including defense companies) wish list of gifts from the U.S. Treasury has exploded the deficit and put an unbearable tax burden on working Americans.

Progressives think that government need only stimulate the demand side of the economy by (1) shifting the burden of taxes off of working people who by necessity spend their money, to corporate profits and the ultra-wealthy, who often hoard rather than spend any surplus, and (2) by creating the sort of jobs that the private marketplace can't or won't, such as large infrastucture projects including energy infrastructure. Democratic Presidents since FDR have largely used this approach and the more consistently it's been applied, the better it has worked. Also European countries w/ much higher taxes on the very wealthy and corporate profits (not earnings) than we have, have stronger economies than we do.

So in two senses the wealthy don't create jobs, demand does. Firstly not all jobs are created by wealthy people. In a good economy, people of very modest means often start small businesses that include employees (in fact that's a major portion of jobs), and government projects can create others. Secondly, human nature and the survival instinct being what it is, concentration of wealth always occurs w/o any government help. Just as the poor will always be with us, so will the rich. But these folks won't risk their valued wealth to produce a good or service unless they see a strong demand (including prosperous enough potential customers) for it. If they don't see the demand, they will sit on their money to the detriment of the economy. In real economic history this is the way things have always worked. Everything else has been shown to be just pretty, meaningless words. Like Ron Paul's speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #25
62. If the demand is strong enough, people will be doing it for NO profit..
The businessman just has to figure a way to profit on it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
golddigger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 02:30 PM
Response to Original message
28. Damn, that's right! People demand goods and services and "POOF!"
They magically appear. No one with capital invest is involved at all. Yeah, and Santa Claus produces these goods and services for the little people to buy.

What I'm trying to say here is, there has to be a PRODUCER somewhere in the mix or do people create demand and the items just *poof* magically appear? And who will be more apt to PRODUCE something? The wealthy for one, YES, but it will depend on them to also pass along or LOAN out resources for these NOT wealthy to PRODUCE as well. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 09:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
42. We don't need gov't to create an upper class, but we do need it to make them behave.
No Democrat, despite calling for increased taxes on some types of profits and passive wealth, has ever suggested or attempted impoverishing all wealthy people. The only people doing that are the crooks amongst the ultra-wealthy themselves. So there will never, in any imaginable future, be an issue of an absence of an upper class. However, the ultra-wealthy have been know to wield their inherent power to severely lower living standards for everyone else by their attempts to grab it all, leading to a severe loss of capital and spending power amongst the middle class. What follows is a weakening of the demand side of the economy which leads to the entire economy shrinking. That is why, according to Adam Smith, completely unregulated capital regularly self-destructs. That is also why government needs, almost exclusively, to support the demand side of the economy, with job creation as well as limiting taxation on working people, and to institute regulations that prevent wealthy insiders from looting the institutions that hold and invest wealth.

A really good lesson is the historic creation of the middle class in Europe and the decline of feudalism. When the iron plow and advances in yoking the horse increased food production allowing the most enterprising serfs to take their skills to towns and form guilds, the whole economy prospered. The general standard of living increased for all. No ultra-wealthy venture capitalists were necessary. Then there arose merchants to market the production in a more wholesale fashion, and the rest followed with only occasional input from the crown. People being what we are, wealth tends to concentrate without government assistance. General prosperity needs help.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 08:01 AM
Response to Reply #28
63. As I said upthread...
If the demand is strong enough, it will be accomplished, profit or no profit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 01:15 PM
Response to Reply #63
93. What do you mean?
Let's say in one small town, there is no coffee shop. And let's say there is strong demand for a coffee shop. Are you saying that someone will open up a coffee shop out of the goodness of their heart to satisfy that demand? I'm not sure what you're saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
annabanana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #93
95. When I say DEMAND, I don't mean the thought that a cup of coffee
would be nice. . Do any capitalists know the difference between want and need? People will drink coffee at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #95
96. I'm still not clear
Sorry to be dense. I thought you said that if there is demand, then it would take care of itself. Just trying to understand your point.

Sure people will drink coffee at home. But what is your point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 07:21 PM
Response to Original message
36. Stupid richie piglicons sit around an be piggies on our dimes.
They have maids, cooks, bottle washers, drivers, ass wipers, so yeah they create those jobs. Want one of those?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
37. Republics create jobs only when they have to.
If they could help it, they'd operate their businesses with no labor at all. To the owners, labor is a necessary evil. When possible, they eliminate jobs, or ship them overseas to pay less for the labor.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
4 t 4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #37
43. What good is any
kind of anything for small business (Tax them, don't tax them) if the people around you don't have a dime to buy your product? If were all doing as bad as we are now it doesn't matter how many small businesses are created, no one will have money to but thoses products. If the bottom is not doing good, no one else will be doing good! The bottom and middle move the economy!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #43
44. Amen. Ford was right. Your workers need to be able to buy your product.
The fact is that investors and big-business executives are very short-sighted.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. Short-sighted Americans, or far-sighted traitors. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #51
57. Hard to say.
There's no doubt that they put corporate interests ahead of the interests of the American people, but they're businesses, and that's what they're supposed to do. This is why reasonable regulation is necessary when corporate interests and national interests do not coincide.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #57
64. People aren't businesses. People are people. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #57
77. The 21st Century Question Is...
what happens when mega-corporations, acting for their bottom line as they are designed to do, dismantle the ability of national governments to regulate them at all, by global "trade agreements" written by representatives of themselves but ratified by corrupt governments, and by controlling the message and information available from all major media, thus skewing elections? Under certain circumstances we may be allowed to have a President Obama, but a Kucinich or Wellstone or even Edwards will never be given a fair shot at getting their message across. Any tiny coverage they are allowed will be buried under a mountain of scurrilous attacks. The corporate media are no longer even reporting mass demonstrations.

How is essential regulation to be accomplished?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #77
97. That is a good question.
If corrupt government caves, there's nothing to be done. Our only hope is for the people to re-seize control of government and then force said corporations to submit to regulation or lose access to the American market.

But without popular control of the government, this is a pipe dream.

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:28 AM
Response to Reply #37
79. Well Duh
Every business owner only creates jobs then they have to. That's a truism for all employers no matter what the political affiliation. Think about it. If I have enough enough employees to handle all the work I have, why would I hire a new person? To do what? And if I have extra work that needs doing, I'm only going to hire the number of people that are necessary to do that work. No more and no less.

What companies create jobs even when they don't have to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 10:24 PM
Response to Original message
45. Yes. Hello? Why is this not completely obvious to the rest of the country? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Heather MC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 11:55 PM
Response to Original message
47. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME CINDY MCLAME CREATED A JOB?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frankowen7 Donating Member (100 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-21-08 11:59 PM
Response to Original message
48. Kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:03 AM
Response to Original message
49. Good point! The part I hate most about that discussion is ...
... when the GOP-controlled media says corporations give people jobs.

I've never been given a job; I always had to apply for it, interview for it and work to keep it.

No one gave me anything but a chance. In fact they would call me and then I could decide whether or not to accept the offer.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
upi402 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
50. Huh? Quick, alert the media!!!
oh.. oh yeah. oh well.
:hangover:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shadowknows69 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 05:41 AM
Response to Original message
53. It's a simple fact they don't seem to grasp isn't it?
Thanks to you offshoring all our manufacturing all we have left is a consumer economy. No money, no consuming, no jobs in the consumer services. A fucking monkey could figure it out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JI7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 05:52 AM
Response to Original message
54. i hate it when idiots say to me "but corporations create jobs"
whenever i tell them those with more wealth should be taxed more. i just get so angry at the stupidity of it i'm not even able to explain things to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #54
80. corporations do create jobs
What are you trying to say?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #80
87. He's trying to say
corporations create jobs in response to demand, so when you stifle demand by giving corporations no-strings-attached tax breaks that increase the tax burden on the middle class, you inevitably set in motion an economic train that decreases jobs. This is not an abstract theory. It has played out under every Republican President since and including Reagan.

People who say "corporations create jobs" are almost always saying it to support their assertion that in order to increase jobs, corporate profits should not be taxed. Experience has proved the reverse.

P.S. DD921, I encourage you to read my response (#70--"To Clarify") to your previous post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fed_up_mother Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #87
90. Excellent post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ItNerd4life Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #87
91. I like the way you described it
when you said "jobs are created in response to demand". It's sad how many people don't understand this basic concept.

Nicely phrased.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #87
94. of course response to demand
I freely acknowledge that demand and new jobs are interrelated. It's obvious.

But I still favor lowering corporate tax rates. When you raise corporate taxes, it increases the cost of doing business to that company. When a company faces increased cost of doing business, what does it do? It finds a way to recoup that cost by: raising prices, cutting salaries, eliminating jobs, cutting benefits, moving overseas, etc. You can't raise corporate taxes in a vacuum.

Also, lowering corporate tax rates does not increase the tax burden on middle class. That's true only if the government raises those taxes on middle class.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
clear eye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 12:59 AM
Response to Reply #94
99. When you tax only profits, that doesn't increase the cost of doing business.
The taxes come after expenses including payroll are paid, so it incentivises hiring and expansion, as long as there is demand. The reason lowering corporate and capital gains taxes increases the tax burden on wage earners, especially the middle class, is that gov't is not free. Especially when we are paying interest on an enormous deficit, the money has to come from somewhere.

The big question is why would you want to do something that has been tried to death over the last 30 years and caused economic downturn every single time? Even if you are the owner of a small business, the profitability of your business depends on general prosperity much more than it does on few dollars less in taxes. Even government's ability to help businesses with the cost of health insurance depends on the good revenues that come from a decent economy. Don't you believe in empirical knowledge?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 05:44 AM
Response to Reply #99
100. sorry - bad terminology
You're technically right. Increasing taxes on profits does not increase the cost of doing business. My point remains the same, though -- if the government takes more money out of a corp, then the corp will find ways to recoup that money from somewhere else, i.e., lowering salaries, cutting jobs, etc. If you cut into a company's profits, the company will find ways to make up the difference if at all possible.

I don't think it's an either/or. It's not like one has to raise taxes on the middle class in order to cut corporate taxes. You can cut everyone's taxes! That's what my preference would be actually. I think the government has grown so large that I'd rather see it reduced across the board.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 06:55 AM
Response to Reply #100
103. Let's see - you want to reduce Govm't, cut corporate taxes, oppose the Employee Free Choice Act
...seem to think (in this post) that there should be no burden on Corporations to pay for those "Commons" goods (like an educated workforce, decent roads and water systems, etc.) without which they could not operate (that's what the taxes you so object to pay for - or should).

Sounds like pure Free-Marketeer-ism to me. How's that working out for all of us lately (like the last thirty years or so?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #103
107. Any sane person
would want to reduce the size/scope of the federal government. Can you imagine the amount of fraud and waste that is spent by the federal government? I would imagine that if we could ever get a private accounting of all government agencies and spending (which will never happen), we could reduce federal spending by at least one third. I am all for government doing good. But that is wholly different from giving the government a blank check ad infinitum, which is what we're doing now. I would love to eliminate ear marks and eliminate the role of lobbyists in government. how is that in any way UNdemocratic?

Employee Free Choice Act? How's that for an Orwellian title?! What is free about denying people their right to vote in a secret ballot? Would you also support denying the right to a secret vote in a presidential election? We can just collect cards from folks and submit them to the government. We'll call it the Voters Free Choice Act. We don't need an actual election!

Yes, corporations should pay taxes. But alwasy bear in mind that when the costs of business increase (or you take more of their profits) the corporation will find ways to get that money back, e.g., cutting jobs, cutting benefits, etc. If you really want to soak corporations, why not just tax them at 90%? Wouldn't that be even better?




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bread_and_roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #107
109. You're entire first paragraph is nonsense. Second makes a false statement. Third misses the point
You are making allegations with nothing to back them up. For one simple example, Medicare spends about 3% on administrative costs, while tell me again what private health insurers spend? (btw, 3% is probably not enough to administer such a huge program effectively, but I'm sure they have to justify every cent to people like you. Doubtless too few staff and other cost factors cause some of the problems people sometimes have with Medicare - though despite those, it remains one of the programs that the public supports in overwhelming majorities).

Is there fraud and waste? Sure. Most spectaculalarly in the Military budget. We could probably save a third if we trimmed it to reasonable size. And all human systems need oversight, checks, and balances to prevent fraud and waste. Those, however, do require staff (internal or external) - in other words, administrative costs - that some seem to find so objectionable.

Second: the Employee Free Choice Act does not "deny" any right to vote in a secret ballot. That is a misrepresentation. It leaves the choice up to the workers - thus, "Employee Free Choice." The only "right" it takes away is the "right" of an employer to choose FOR them - to his/her/its own advantage. This was all explained to you in detail in the thread on the subject.

Your third paragraph misses the point and makes an assumption that the way it is now is the way it shall always be. Tax structures can be designed to make cutting jobs and wages, off-shoring, and poor treatment of employees regarding benefits and work conditions less profitable.

This discussion will all be moot in the not to distant future anyway. These corporations for which you have such tender concern are dinosaurs - or actually, the Easter Island humans are a better analogy. They have staked their life on an unsustainable system, and will either radically adapt or they will die. (That is, if they don't kill all of us first, which is a distinct possibility).

And, moot or not, I am done with talking to you. Your repeated mis-representation of the Employee Free Choice Act convinces me that there is no point to it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-24-08 06:44 AM
Response to Reply #109
110. Misrepresentation? I think not
Of course the "free" choice act denies the right to vote. Under the act, a union is certified if a majority of employees sign pledge cards, correct? No election is held. If no election is held, no one gets to vote. Simple.

My biggest concern with this act is that what people say in public and what they vote in private are sometimes different. I don't wany any employee coerced by any side when making that decision. So a secret ballot vote is the best way to ensure that the employee chooses what he really wants to choose, not what he's pressured into choosing by his co-workers or by bosses.

You can be done talking to me if you want. But I am right on this one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 06:54 AM
Response to Reply #94
102. Corporate tax rates are the lowest they've been in history.
Where's the hiring?

Where are the lower prices?

Your talking point is bullshit.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #102
108. Where do you get your facts???
Seriously, you can't just spout total falsehoods on here and not expect someone to do their homework. I just googled "history corporate taxes." One of the first entries I saw was an IRS publication setting out the corporate tax rates from 1909 - 2002. Please read and learn. I'd post if I wasn't so illiterate with computers. "Corporation Income Tax Brackets and Rates, 1909 - 2002" That's the title. And it's from the IRS, not from any biased source.

You will see many periods in our past with lower corporate tax rates.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
johnnyrocket Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 07:47 AM
Response to Original message
58. Agreed! The 'weathly make jobs' bullshit is to make the wealthy RICHER..
...nothing more...


The Republicans are only about greed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bulloney Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
69. People don't establish businesses to create jobs per se. They do it to make money.
They need the labor to generate that money. Nothing wrong with that, but some people make this whole scenario sound like the wealthy are on this noble mission to create jobs with their investments. They're doing it to make money. If they can make money with less or no labor costs, they do it in a heartbeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
w4rma Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-22-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #69
72. And they don't make money. People accumulate money through businesses.
Edited on Wed Oct-22-08 10:23 AM by w4rma
Only the Feds make money.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DailyGrind51 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 05:47 AM
Response to Original message
101. ...they send them overseas, where they can pay lower wages!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Spritz57 Donating Member (354 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 07:05 AM
Response to Original message
104. One of the sad parts of the Joe the Plumber story is
Barack Obama said to Joe in the full taped conversation, the middle class tax cuts would allow people the extra funds to afford his services. Why was this under reported?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moondust Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-23-08 08:25 AM
Response to Original message
105. True in a consumer economy.
But I'm not sure that's what the Republics really want. Republics seem to have as their economic goal a reinstitution of feudalism/slavery in which they live it up in their castles/plantation homes while everybody else is a peon/slave working the fields for a pittance. No middle class. A completely top-down system in which they give all the orders, suck up all the profits, and produce goods and services whenever and however they feel like it without any regulation or oversight.

:smoke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC