Obama 2008 Campaign Pledge of Uniting The Country: Epic FAILURE (middle east, poll, how much)

[buzzards27]

You really should refrain from the namecalling, you know it always comes back to bite you....

I'm a business owner and at the end of the year I have $50,000 in profits that I wasn't expecting. I have choices where that money can go. I can dividing it up and give $1,000 bonuses to my 50 line workers, I could give $10,000 to the 5 company officers or I could pay dividends to my stockholders. If I give to one the others are left out.... You getting the point. Screwing the middle class and the working poor happens with millions of similar decisions every year.

If the economy isn't a zero sum proposition, why not pour cash into the middle classes paychecks? If giving to the wealthy doesn't hurt the poor, why not give more to the poor, it shouldn't affect the wealthy.

Originally Posted by pghquest

Total ignorance. Explain this to me buzzard so I can laugh at you.

When Buffet takes $100M and buys a company, how did he take money out of the economy by doing so?

When Bill Gates, sells a copy of Windows and becomes wealthier, how did he take money out of the economy?

Where do they put it? Under their pillow?

Your chart further shows the stupidity of the left because it has nothing at all to do with taking money out of the economy. You dont get wealthy by taking money out of the economy, you get wealthy by putting it in. Unless of course you can list a billionaire who got wealthy on their own.

This goes to show the utter incompetence of the left wing abilityto understand economics and why you support programs that fail.

When the wealthy take money out of this economy, park it overseas, invest it in China, put it in mason jars and bury it out back. They do take cash out everyone else hands. You might take a look at the velocity of the M1 money supply. Scary, and it is the result of the wealthy hoarding, squirreling away their take.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by MTAtech

Of course it did. Amazon's rise is at the expense of others fall -- just as the income gains of the top 1% (+276% since 1979) is at the expense of everyone else, who haven't grow at all.

Amazon rose at the expense of others but that doesnt remove wealth from the economy, it just changs who obtains it.

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

Stop with the strawman. Redistributing wealth is not class warfare, and that's not even what YOU said was the cause of Obama's class warfare. I've already quoted you twice on how YOU defined class warfare. Stay on point.

You dont like the postings doesnt equate to strawman. Thats your problem.

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

Obama to the 99%: B/c of the greedy 1%, your taxes are too high & the gov't doesn't have enough money to do what it needs to do. Unless we fix the problem w/ the greedy 1%, your life is going to get worse.

WRONG... Obama, to the 99%, bc of the greedy 1% you cant succeed. Obama doesnt at all address the fact that more than 1/2 of the 99% pays NO INCOME TAX AT ALL..

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

Republicans to the country: B/c of the lazy poor, your taxes are too high & the gov't doesn't have enough money to do what it needs to do. Unless we fix the problem w/ the lazy poor, your life is going to get worse..

WRONG AGAIN.. government SHOULDNT BE DOING 1/2 of what it does to begin with. Remember, the GOP wants to starve people and push old ladies off a cliff. No where does the GOP believe the government have enough money.

Not even close to the same.. In fact they are OPPOSITE of one another.

Originally Posted by EddieB.Good

Tell me how one of these statements is class warfare but the other isn't.

YOU are the one making strawman arguments that dont exist

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

You really should refrain from the namecalling, you know it always comes back to bite you....

Then stop making ridiculous postings

Originally Posted by buzzards27

I'm a business owner and at the end of the year I have $50,000 in profits that I wasn't expecting. I have choices where that money can go. I can dividing it up and give $1,000 bonuses to my 50 line workers, I could give $10,000 to the 5 company officers or I could pay dividends to my stockholders. If I give to one the others are left out.... You getting the point. Screwing the middle class and the working poor happens with millions of similar decisions every year.

WRONG. These people get a salary, and no matter who you gave that money to, you distribute it back to the economy.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

If the economy isn't a zero sum proposition, why not pour cash into the middle classes paychecks?

The economy is zero sum, but we arent discussing the economy, we are discussing wealth.. My wealth does not grow at your expense. If it does, then why do you cheer the stock market recovery since Obama has been elected, because according to your argument, that stock market growth came at someone elses expense.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

If giving to the wealthy doesn't hurt the poor, why not give more to the poor, it shouldn't affect the wealthy.

Why is it you always want to give things to people? Is that how you are taught to get ahead in society, by demanding things? Tell me how Warren Buffet, the latest left wing hero, is responsible for people living in the projects? He's got hundreds of thousands of employees, keeping them out of poverty, and you stand here blaming him.

Originally Posted by buzzards27

When the wealthy take money out of this economy, park it overseas, invest it in China, put it in mason jars and bury it out back. The do take cash out everyone else hands. You might take a look at the velocity of the M1 money supply. Scary, and it is the result of the wealthy hoarding, squirreling away their take.

Wrong, even if they park it overseas or invest in China, its not out of the economy. You cant park money overseas without putting it in a bank which then reloans it back out to the economy. What on gods earth do you think banks do with money n deposits

[buzzards27]

Originally Posted by pghquest

Then stop making ridiculous postings

if I give $50,000 to the investors that means the line workers DIDN'T get it. I helped the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The fact you don't see that is troubling. You really need to get out of your cyber world and back to reality.

WRONG. These people get a salary, and no matter who you gave that money to, you distribute it back to the economy.

The economy is zero sum, but we arent discussing the economy, we are discussing wealth.. My wealth does not grow at your expense. If it does, then why do you cheer the stock market recovery since Obama has been elected, because according to your argument, that stock market growth came at someone elses expense.

Why is it you always want to give things to people? Is that how you are taught to get ahead in society, by demanding things? Tell me how Warren Buffet, the latest left wing hero, is responsible for people living in the projects? He's got hundreds of thousands of employees, keeping them out of poverty, and you stand here blaming him.

Wrong, even if they park it overseas or invest in China, its not out of the economy. You cant park money overseas without putting it in a bank which then reloans it back out to the economy. What on gods earth do you think banks do with money n deposits

[pghquest]

Originally Posted by buzzards27

if I give $50,000 to the investors that means the line workers DIDN'T get it. I helped the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. The fact you don't see that is troubling. You really need to get out of your cyber world and back to reality.

No you didnt help the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, where on gods earth do you think they TOOK money from the workers? ITS NOT THEIR MONEY so you DIDNT TAKE IT FROM THEM.

What you did was you thanked them for investing in your company because without them, the people on the line wouldnt have jobs .

YOU are the one who needs to get back to reality and stop living in your phantasy, boo hooo hoo, "you are owed" something world.

[Truckin]

Yes, Epic Failure is an understatement for Barry Soetoro.

[buzzards27]

don't alter my premise. I said I have a choice where to spend the $50,000 profit. Why are investors any more entitle to that dividend? Wouldn't it be wise to reward the workers that actually produced the profit?

Originally Posted by pghquest

No you didnt help the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, where on gods earth do you think they TOOK money from the workers? ITS NOT THEIR MONEY so you DIDNT TAKE IT FROM THEM.

What you did was you thanked them for investing in your company because without them, the people on the line wouldnt have jobs .

YOU are the one who needs to get back to reality and stop living in your phantasy, boo hooo hoo, "you are owed" something world.

[chickenfriedbananas]

Originally Posted by pghquest

No you didnt help the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, where on gods earth do you think they TOOK money from the workers? ITS NOT THEIR MONEY so you DIDNT TAKE IT FROM THEM.

What you did was you thanked them for investing in your company because without them, the people on the line wouldnt have jobs .

YOU are the one who needs to get back to reality and stop living in your phantasy, boo hooo hoo, "you are owed" something world.

The point he's trying to make -- and the one you are stubbornly refusing to accept -- is that if he pays it out to investors and gives them an additional return on their investment at the expense of his employees, then he is giving his employees less power to be consumers. They're like rats running on a treadmill. If this happens at one company out of every twenty or so, maybe that's one thing, but if you have an entire company which encourages rewarding those who already have disposable income over those who do not, then you're essentially encouraging the death of consumption. And consumption is the life's blood of capitalism.

When you have millions of workers who are barely making enough to cover expenses, you have an economy of workers who don't have enough salary to consume things beyond their basic necessities. That's why taxing taking away their lower tax rates and forcing them to pay 'fair' taxes at 17 percent isn't really so fair, because they don't have that much extra to pay out anyway.

There are two ways that people can end up getting that excess buying power and drive consumer activity (which by the way is what drives business activity): They can either wait things out and hope they get a better-paying job, which is less and less likely in an economy that encourages 'plutonomics', or they can open up lines of credit and go into debt.

[buzzards27]

And saying the working poor benefits by the wealthy banking their wealth is idiotic. Some poor SAP, overlooked for a raise or bonus, will end up borrowing that money all right. But how does the poor accumulating DEBT equate to the already wealthy accumulating more wealth? Pgh, you need a reality check.