Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since you guys cant follow along with the discussion, lets recap..
buzz said that people becoming wealthy causes others to be poor, then he goes on to sight an example of GIVING wealth to people. both you and buzz needs to try harder because if you give $50K to the investors, are you are not causing the workers to become poorer.. They hold the same wealth regardless of you giving money to investors or not because the money isnt the workers.
Seems you are the only one that cannot follow and understand simple concepts, cannot waver from the wingnut talking point and cannot get beyond your cut and paste nonsense posts.
Funny thing, YOU assumed I gave the $50k to the investors, in reality I paid bonuses to my workers. The investors did ZERO to grow my business, they didn't bring a single new contract or new client in, they sold ZERO and made NOTHING of value. My workers on the other hand made my business grow, their efforts made me money. They created the unexpected profits. Why on earth would I give it to someone that didn't earn it? Someone that sat on their butt while my workers busted their butts.
When I gave that money to the line workers the investors lost out, THEY are the ones that didn't see bonuses or dividends. They are the ones with less money, poorer if you well.
If you only have a certain amount of excess cash, when I give it to one group, they are the winners and everyone else is the losers. Works the same with pork from DC, one state wins pork and another doesn't have the cash to fund projects they think are important. Did both states do as well when one gets 90% of the available funds?
Winners and losers. Over the last 30 years or so the wealthy have been winners, accumulating wealth, and the middle class have been the losers, accumulating debt.
Last edited by buzzards27; 01-31-2012 at 03:25 PM..
So you are sitting at home in the house you paid for, with money you were taxed on, and the doorbell rings. A guy and his wife and kids are standing on the porch with their suitcases. You open the door and they walk through. You tell them to get out of your house or you are going to call the cops. They tell you they are homeless and need a roof, and since they heard you had two extra bedrooms they decided to move in.
It's not like you are using those bedrooms anyway, says the dad. "But it's my house!" you cry. "Not fair" , they say. It doesn't cost you anything to let us in and besides I worked in the factory that made your furniture so part of the house is mine dad says. I worked at the carpet mill so part is mine says mom. We won't be any bother except at suppertime when you are feeding us.
Suddenly you remember all the posts you made on CD about the evil rich and how they should give up their money cause the poor guy doesn't have anything and the profits of a company should be distributed to the workers. You invite him in and cook him supper. And you all live happily ever after. The End.
Seems you are the only one that cannot follow and understand simple concepts, cannot waver from the wingnut talking point and cannot get beyond your cut and paste nonsense posts
No, I have no problem at all proving you wrong, you just refuse to acknowledge you are wrong and playing dumb, here, lets continue so I can show you where.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Funny thing, YOU assumed I gave the $50k to the investors, in reality I paid bonuses to my workers.
No, on the contrary, I used YOUR example to show you where you are wrong . In all honesty, I assumed you've never seen $50,000 in your life because those who have, and decided to give it away, wouldnt be standing here arguing that you giving it to person A can only come at the expense of person B, considering its NOT THEIR MONEY
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
if I give $50,000 to the investors that means the line workers DIDN'T get it
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
The investors did ZERO to grow my business, they didn't bring a single new contract or new client in, they sold ZERO and made NOTHING of value. My workers on the other hand made my business grow, their efforts made me money. They created the unexpected profits. Why on earth would I give it to someone that didn't earn it? Someone that sat on their butt while my workers busted their butts.
Ahh, see you are failing again because your argument is that you have to steal wealth from 1 person in order to give it to someone else, so now you are saying you gave this $50K to your employees, which of course means you stole it from the investors, right? See, you are disproving your own argument right before your eyes. In all reality, it doesnt matter if you gave it to person A, or person B, or gave it to no one, it still enters into the economy regardless unless you take it and put it under your pillow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
When I gave that money to the line workers the investors lost out, THEY are the ones that didn't see bonuses or dividends. They are the ones with less money, poorer if you well.
They did not lose out, IT WASNT THEIR MONEY The only one that would lose out in this example is YOU, but how the hell does any of this prove that wealth is finite, which was your argument to begin with?
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
If you only have a certain amount of excess cash, when I give it to one group, they are the winners and everyone else is the losers
WRONG, unless you believe the employees put their money under their pillow. Otherwise one might assume they SPENT it, thus benefiting not only them, but the individuals they spent it on, thus creating even more wealth. Again, you are proving yourself wrong by your very own example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Works the same with pork from DC, one state wins pork and another doesn't have the cash to fund projects they think are important. Did both states do as well when one gets 90% of the available funds?
Thats not the discussion, the discussion is FINITE WEALTH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buzzards27
Winners and losers. Over the last 30 years or so the wealthy have been winners, accumulating wealth, and the middle class have been the losers, accumulating debt.
Winners and losers isnt the discussion, the discussion is you dont need to take wealth from person A for person B to obtain it. By your own example, you spread $50K wealth to your employees, who then spent it, and then helped create wealth for someone else, who the spent it to the benefit someone else. MULTIPLE individuals benefited from one distribution and just because they did, this doesnt mean you had to take $50K from the investors because YOU DIDNT.. IT WASNT THEIR MONEY!!
So you are sitting at home in the house you paid for, with money you were taxed on, and the doorbell rings. A guy and his wife and kids are standing on the porch with their suitcases. You open the door and they walk through. You tell them to get out of your house or you are going to call the cops. They tell you they are homeless and need a roof, and since they heard you had two extra bedrooms they decided to move in.
It's not like you are using those bedrooms anyway, says the dad. "But it's my house!" you cry. "Not fair" , they say. It doesn't cost you anything to let us in and besides I worked in the factory that made your furniture so part of the house is mine dad says. I worked at the carpet mill so part is mine says mom. We won't be any bother except at suppertime when you are feeding us.
Suddenly you remember all the posts you made on CD about the evil rich and how they should give up their money cause the poor guy doesn't have anything and the profits of a company should be distributed to the workers. You invite him in and cook him supper. And you all live happily ever after. The End.
Your obvious fallacy is that anyone who calls for higher taxes on the rich are demonizing them and calling them evil. I'm sure that was exactly what Bill Gates did the other day when he said that taxes on the rich should rise.
Yes well the Republicans are sore losers is what it comes down to.
They just couldn't come to terms with the fact that the country did not WANT Papa John and Caribou Barbie and so resorted to spreading lies and trash talking wherever possible.
I lost count of the stupid chain emails I got from my conservative friends that were based on falsehoods - the one about Obama honoring Jane Fonda (it was Barbara Walters, and it was ten years ago), the one about Obama voting for a palatial prison in Illinois (actually it was in Austria) etc etc.
Sure there are many valid reasons to be critical of what he has or has not done. But the sheer propagation of out and out lies is unlike anything I've ever seen.
Like I said:
SORE LOSERS.
And they will be again at the rate they are going with the clown parade in the Repuboican primaries.
I notice you use the same hyperbole and msnbc is calling everyone in the republican party a clown.
Obama never tried to unite the parties, he likes the division and dissension and plays on it .
Obama came from a church where his pastor kept the congregation coming to hear his divisive words of preaching about the difference of the rich whites to the poor blacks... ====as if there are no poor whites..
. Obama is using the same division to keep his power and of course the democrats will support this guy no matter what. Even when the country defaults the dems will blame the republicans , not Obama spending and forever blaming the republicans.
winner and loser, when the wealthy take a bigger slice of the pie there is less for everyone else...
The top 10% of all income earners took 64% of all increases, the other 90% shared 36% of the increase in income.
Seek help fella.
If I need to seek help, then you need to seek an education, because income isnt wealth Its a shame you put all that work into showing you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about.
If I need to seek help, then you need to seek an education, because income isnt wealth Its a shame you put all that work into showing you dont have a clue what the hell you are talking about.
Yep, we'll pretend you don't see any correlation between the accumulation of wealth and the level of income. In your world anyone can accumulate wealth no matter how little they earn.
FYI, your can, "you don't know the difference between income and wealth" is getting old and is an indication of your lack of critical thinking, you need to update your clique talking points.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
