TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Wow, who said that and what significance does that have to me? The Obama Administration, last week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Sadly, that's actually better than you sh...it eaters trying to "create jobs" by cutting government jobs. the simple fact is that government is the one area where it is economically sound to reduce employment, because the government doesn't actually produce anything, and they have to take money out of the economy to support it's employees. it's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. you can't use the argument that it helps the economy by providing jobs because it has to take in order to give. that's not forward progress,,,,it's lateral at best. a business has to run efficiently to remain viable, but there is nothing efficient about the federal government at all, and when people demand accountability and efficiency, their efforts are met with inane accusations of sefishness and greed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 the simple fact is that government is the one area where it is economically sound to reduce employment, because the government doesn't actually produce anything, and they have to take money out of the economy to support it's employees. it's literally robbing Peter to pay Paul. you can't use the argument that it helps the economy by providing jobs because it has to take in order to give. that's not forward progress,,,,it's lateral at best. a business has to run efficiently to remain viable, but there is nothing efficient about the federal government at all, and when people demand accountability and efficiency, their efforts are met with inane accusations of sefishness and greed. The money taken "out" of the economy actually gets tossed right back in through Consumer spending which creates even more jobs. So your argument is false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The money taken "out" of the economy actually gets tossed right back in through Consumer spending which creates even more jobs. So your argument is false. That depends on the multiplier you dipshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The money taken "out" of the economy actually gets tossed right back in through Consumer spending which creates even more jobs. So your argument is false. Rats. I had my money on 'but government workers pay taxes too!'. But that answer was almost as dumb. Gee, under your brilliant theory, why don't we just create 20 million additional government jobs? Might as well make minimum wage $25/hr too. Zero unemployment and all the money goes right back into consumer spending. US economic problems solved! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 That depends on the multiplier you dipshit. This position logically depends on the notion that all investment is profitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The Obama Administration, last week. Oh, that's right, I forgot the far right thinks Obama is a communist That depends on the multiplier you dipshit. lol, you calling anyone a (*^*&%^$^#is funny, but no it doesn't, if people spend the money they make it creates jobs. That's why economist watch consumer spending so closely. Thanks for trying to contribute though. You still get an F because these is no grade for effort. Stupid is still stupid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 The money taken "out" of the economy actually gets tossed right back in through Consumer spending which creates even more jobs. So your argument is false. no, it isn't. the money is taken away before it can be spent. part of it is given to another person in the form of a paycheck, and a lot of it goes to the people who administer the transfer. the government employee in your example is just spending money that the person it was taken from would have spent. it is not economically viable. additionally, if you're going to use consumer spending as part of your argument, you may want to look a little more closely at the effect taxation has on consumer spending. the more that's taxed, the less gets spent. this is not a philosphical argument, it's a matter of numbers, plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Rats. I had my money on 'but government workers pay taxes too!'. But that answer was almost as dumb. You should post exactly what you do put your money on so intelligent people would know what not to bet on. I'm trying to remember if you have ever contributed anything to a post that was even close to being interesting, thoughtful or original and I don't think you have. Just an ignorant bore no, it isn't. the money is taken away before it can be spent. part of it is given to another person in the form of a paycheck, and a lot of it goes to the people who administer the transfer. the government employee in your example is just spending money that the person it was taken from would have spent. it is not economically viable. additionally, if you're going to use consumer spending as part of your argument, you may want to look a little more closely at the effect taxation has on consumer spending. the more that's taxed, the less gets spent. this is not a philosphical argument, it's a matter of numbers, plain and simple. Yes, and the person that administers it spends his paycheck also. Money does not simply disappear And the beauty of progressive taxation is that it takes from those who don't use a large part of their wealth on consumer spending. Or, if we just borrow the money, the people lending the money get a safe place to invest and the people getting the jobs, get, well jobs and country gets improved infrastructure really cheap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 And the beauty of progressive taxation is that it takes from those who don't use a large part of their wealth on consumer spending. Why does the federal government get to take money that doesn't belong to them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Why does the federal government get to take money that doesn't belong to them? Why does the federal government get to take money that doesn't belong to them? Oooo!! Oooo!! I'll answer this one Mr. Cotter! Is it because of that thing they call the Constitution?? The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defenceand general Welfare of the United States Edited February 14, 2014 by gatorman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Yes, and the person that administers it spends his paycheck also. Money does not simply disappear it does not disappear, but neither does it magically multiply. if one person has a hundred dollars to spend, he'll spend it. if you take it from him and divide it among 4 government workers, then it's still the same 100 dollars that is spent. what you did was take it from someone who earned it doing something productive, and simply handed it over to other people who's productivity is more than questionable. there is no gain economically at all. this isn't debatable, it's a fact. a best case scenario is that it all comes out even in the end, but that can't happen either because of the administrative costs of collecting those tax dollars and redistributing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 it does not disappear, but neither does it magically multiply. if one person has a hundred dollars to spend, he'll spend it. if you take it from him and divide it among 4 government workers, then it's still the same 100 dollars that is spent. what you did was take it from someone who earned it doing something productive, and simply handed it over to other people who's productivity is more than questionable. there is no gain economically at all. this isn't debatable, it's a fact. a best case scenario is that it all comes out even in the end, but that can't happen either because of the administrative costs of collecting those tax dollars and redistributing them. First off, you don't even have to take it from anyone, many people will simply throw their money into the pot. The bond market is a wonderful thing. Secondly, lets face it, the super wealthy--the hardest working of us all, lol--don't spend all their income on consumer goods. I don't think spreading a little of the wealth will be the end of the world. Investing in America will benefit everyone, even the super wealthy I wish I could the dictator of the country, I'd fix things Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 First off, you don't even have to take it from anyone, many people will simply throw their money into the pot. The bond market is a wonderful thing. Secondly, lets face it, the super wealthy--the hardest working of us all, lol--don't spend all their income on consumer goods. I don't think spreading a little of the wealth will be the end of the world. Investing in America will benefit everyone, even the super wealthy I wish I could the dictator of the country, I'd fix things The super wealthy don't buy consumer goods? Not expensive homes, cars, jewelry, boats, planes, summer homes, fine wine? They put their money in a safe where nobody can find it? The money they invest is not used as capital in a variety of markets? Don't banks lend money for others to buy or build things? If they buy tax free bonds isn't that money used to fund public projects? If they invest in companies don't those companies benefit from the investment and use the capital? If they buy T-bills doesn't that help fund dare I say Government? As for hard work, do you measure how hard someone works by the number of nails they pound in a day? Is the owner of an engineering company that employs 150 people in which he has invested millions of dollars and years of sweat and stress and works 6-7 days a week and bears the responsibility to maintain and grow a business and support that many families a hard worker? If that person makes over a million dollars a year are they still a hard worker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I wish I could the dictator of the country, I'd fix things You can't even type complete sentences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 First off, you don't even have to take it from anyone, many people will simply throw their money into the pot. The bond market is a wonderful thing. Secondly, lets face it, the super wealthy--the hardest working of us all, lol--don't spend all their income on consumer goods. I don't think spreading a little of the wealth will be the end of the world. Investing in America will benefit everyone, even the super wealthy I wish I could the dictator of the country, I'd fix things That some (actually, many) people spend all their income on consumer goods and don't save for retirement/a rainy day is another issue entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 You can't even type complete sentences. As a dictator, someone else can type his sentences. Of course this is how leftists operate. They want ultimate control because everyone else is too dumb to understand their vision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Oooo!! Oooo!! I'll answer this one Mr. Cotter! Is it because of that thing they call the Constitution?? The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defenceand general Welfare of the United States I missed the part of the Constitution that says the government should take extra money from people who don't use enough of their money on consumer spending. Where does it say, for instance, that if you don't spend more than X% of your income on consumer crap, the government will take it from you? Can you cite that part of the Constitution for us? We'll wait for the inevitable Freebagger response of "Geez, guys, I was only kidding to see what kind of rise I could get out of everyone!" Edited February 14, 2014 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Oooo!! Oooo!! I'll answer this one Mr. Cotter! Is it because of that thing they call the Constitution?? The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defenceand general Welfare of the United States Which brings back to the age-old questions the liberals never want to answer. What is the greatest percentage of income that governments should morally take from those that earn it? How comprehensive should the safety net be and who qualifies for that safety net and for how long? How do you justify your answers to the 2 questions above? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Which brings back to the age-old questions the liberals never want to answer. What is the greatest percentage of income that governments should morally take from those that earn it? How comprehensive should the safety net be and who qualifies for that safety net and for how long? How do you justify your answers to the 2 questions above? I know the answers to those: "Everything above cost of living expenses." "100% coverage, as long as people need it." "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts