Sorry Republican: The Rich Don't Crea...
My two bullets

Cortland, NY

#21 May 22, 2012
teo wrote:
Casual Observer,
You really need to take a basic economics course. After reading your diatribe I have to ask you a few simple questions:
Where does the consumer get his money?
Does it fall from the heavens like Manna? Or does he work for it?
If he works for it does he work at job in some one's business?
Did that business just appear out of the ether to give the consumer his job?
Where did the "rich" get their money? Did they inherit it? Did the government give it to them? If the government gave them their riches where did the government get its money? Were they chosen by lottery?
Have you ever had an original thought or have you been so immersed in socialist agitprop that you find original thought impossible?
Are you just another of Bodhisattva's sock puppets?
This claptrap that you just spewed is some of the most ignorant crap I have ever read here on Topix and that is really saying something!
FACT: The biggest factor in job creation across the board it the OUTLOOK. We don't invest in stock, feedstock and more help unless we expect the OUTLOOK to be a market we can get a margin in get it? This limp-dick president's only skill seems to be a gay love affair with leftwing blind-on-command media and avoiding answering questions with 9 minute answers.

See ya Barack! Proud to have had a black prez but yo sure are a turkey! Damn not even the black people seem to think he's with it or cool!
Ben Gleck

Utica, NY

#22 May 22, 2012
Asking wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!!!!!!!!!!
Add demands of organized labor and excessive government regulation to excessive taxes too as reasons for a down economy. Businesses exsit to make a profit. If they can't do that then they close their doors.
OK P.L. Check out this video. It has some of your favorite republitards explaining how Romney "creates jobs"XXYOUTUBE-2fJhF6uctf MXX&feature=player_embedde d
My two bullets

Cortland, NY

#23 May 22, 2012
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF. Are you for real? Is what this person is trying to say beyond you're comprehension? Do you just buy into the right-wing Republican garbage and take it as the truth? Evidently you do so insults from someone like you are pretty meaningless.
I see you want to attack the Democrates so I assume you are one of the Republican fools who buys this trickle down, supply-side economic BS. And since you probably don't even understand WTF I'm talking about you are one of those Republicans that the wealthy elite Republicans, like Romney, laugh at behind your back because you hardly have anywhere even remotely near their wealth and they have you convinced that the system should be set up to give them even more......by taking even more from you. This is stupid and the end result will not be good.
Here is the bottom line as simple as it can be said: the wealthy do not create jobs, the consumer who buys the products that the job makes creates jobs. Even if it is a service. It is the consumer of that service that creates jobs. Consumer demand creates jobs. Would you call a failed business a job creator? I guess you would.
Lets make believe you're a multi-millionaire. Take all of your millions and build a factory and put in equipment and hire people to make a product that no one will by. When you lose your millions and the factory closes and the people who hoped to have a job are now out on the street will you call yourself a job creator? I think when they use the term they are assuming some longevity. The wealth you had to make a product that the consumer would not buy did not really create any jobs did it?
"The wealthy do not create jobs"? Wrong. I am wealthy and I create jobs in 3 states. I can't imagine where or on what Imus show you hear all this on. Wealthy people are consumers too. We order pallets of 2liter pepsi and Dew at once what are you talking about? The rich buy MORE you're insane.
so unreal

Rome, NY

#24 May 22, 2012
This thread is extremely difficult to speak to as it would take a novel to address all the points and counter points. The truth is in each argument, that's why both sides are so passionate and steadfast about their positions. It is true that the rich create jobs, it it also true they don't create the majority of jobs. It is true individually they consume more goods, it is also true collectively they consume substantially less goods. It is true speculation leads to more risk taking creating more movement in the economy. It is also true that real world events often undermine the most carefully thought through outlooks. When we look at an issue through our prism and not objectively we tend to focus on our viewpoints, myself included. Again, its an inherent flaw in all of us unless we're consciously making ourselves aware to maintain objectivity and even then its difficult.

I stand by the position trickle down economics is not effective because history suggest it isn't. Again, the American economy has typically surged under growth minded Presidents not those pushing austerity measures. The problem as I see it is we always want too much of a good thing, when life is truly about balance. For example, Bill Clinton left the American economy in arguably the best shape in its history. What did we do with our new found wealth? Created unfunded entitlements and wars that ate through any financial buffer available to cushion economic downturns. Why does the American economy feel so stagnant when we're no longer losing jobs and have been creating private sector jobs for awhile? To much US currency being extracted outside the country, not enough Americans ready to enter the job market, credit crunch, lack of training, etc...

If you were to truly look at the big picture of the counter side and not just your own you will find both sides have merit. The million dollar question still is and will always be, what's the right balance. I say history should be the example.
teo

Rome, NY

#25 May 22, 2012
SU,

I agree with some of your points above but I don't quite get your thesis.

It seems that you favor a centralized economy being run by a bureau of technocrats. That has been tried many times, ancient to modern, price controls, wage controls, National Recovery Administration, Five Year Plans and in the end they all fail. They fall into an economic torpor until they kill their economies.

Free market economies are more resilient and are driven by personal interests and therefore more flexible because the adjustments that are made are made on lowest end of the economy and not dictated from the top down.

For myself I'll take the free market.

About your currency comment the opposite of what you say is true. There is too much currency in the economy right now as a result of "Quantitative Easing I+II" and that "twist" thing the Fed did recently which has been reflected in both food and petroleum prices of late.
supply side

San Leandro, CA

#26 May 22, 2012
Let's make it simple. Rich invest in companies to produce innovative products to lower the cost of living for consumers. In doing so they hire people.that's how jobs are created. They risk their capital, and expect a big return on their investment. Not every idea turns into a Coke or Microsoft, but no one sees that.
The stock market was founded to raise money for. business. It turned into a platform that is exploited by technology and intellect.

Everyday private business owners and investors put their money on the line, and deserve big returns givenn the risk. I think the issue is their is a lot of money sitting on the sideline because no one in business sees a demand or havee faith in the president's policies.
Observer

New York, NY

#27 May 22, 2012
teo wrote:
SU,
I agree with some of your points above but I don't quite get your thesis.
It seems that you favor a centralized economy being run by a bureau of technocrats. That has been tried many times, ancient to modern, price controls, wage controls, National Recovery Administration, Five Year Plans and in the end they all fail. They fall into an economic torpor until they kill their economies.
Free market economies are more resilient and are driven by personal interests and therefore more flexible because the adjustments that are made are made on lowest end of the economy and not dictated from the top down.
For myself I'll take the free market.
About your currency comment the opposite of what you say is true. There is too much currency in the economy right now as a result of "Quantitative Easing I+II" and that "twist" thing the Fed did recently which has been reflected in both food and petroleum prices of late.
Yes, but the rest of the industrialied world is in such bad shape, mainly the Eurozone, that the dollar looks better even with the quantitative flooding. But that's part of the point the commenter is making. It's a balance and everything is relative. And that's a point I'm trying to make about what is happening in the US.

Everything takes a balance and is relative. The relative disproportionate gain in income and wealth of the 1 percenters over the last decade plus has put things out of the balance. This is occuring at the same time that discretionary income of the average person has gone down. How long do you think a society can maintiain itself (without military intervention) if it keeps heading in that direction? How long can those jobs the wealthy supposedly created last if the consumer is destroyed? What are they going to do, buy and sell to and from each other? What they will end up having to do is spend their wealth protecting themslves with government and private armies from the hordes of poor people who have nothing left and revolt.

We should be smarter than that and the wealthy are. They will push it to a poinbt and then back off when they know they are in trouble. Marx anticipated a proletariate revolution when the capitalist society extracted all of the excess capital from the working class. Where did he get that idea? He got it after visiting the US and making predictions of the results of the system he saw at that time. Fortunately, the wealthy and the governmebnt backed off and realized that things like legalized orgainized labor and work standards to improve the condition of the working class was bettter than the alternatives. They pick their battles but know that fighting everyone is a loser.

Don't forget that there was a fairly strong communist movement in this country back in the 30s. Captilists and the government backed off after we had rioting and armed conflict in the streets, workers occupying factories and people getting killed. Is this what people want to go back to? Hell, it has started already.
so unreal

Rome, NY

#28 May 23, 2012
Observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, but the rest of the industrialied world is in such bad shape, mainly the Eurozone, that the dollar looks better even with the quantitative flooding. But that's part of the point the commenter is making. It's a balance and everything is relative. And that's a point I'm trying to make about what is happening in the US.
Everything takes a balance and is relative. The relative disproportionate gain in income and wealth of the 1 percenters over the last decade plus has put things out of the balance. This is occuring at the same time that discretionary income of the average person has gone down. How long do you think a society can maintiain itself (without military intervention) if it keeps heading in that direction? How long can those jobs the wealthy supposedly created last if the consumer is destroyed? What are they going to do, buy and sell to and from each other? What they will end up having to do is spend their wealth protecting themslves with government and private armies from the hordes of poor people who have nothing left and revolt.
We should be smarter than that and the wealthy are. They will push it to a poinbt and then back off when they know they are in trouble. Marx anticipated a proletariate revolution when the capitalist society extracted all of the excess capital from the working class. Where did he get that idea? He got it after visiting the US and making predictions of the results of the system he saw at that time. Fortunately, the wealthy and the governmebnt backed off and realized that things like legalized orgainized labor and work standards to improve the condition of the working class was bettter than the alternatives. They pick their battles but know that fighting everyone is a loser.
Don't forget that there was a fairly strong communist movement in this country back in the 30s. Captilists and the government backed off after we had rioting and armed conflict in the streets, workers occupying factories and people getting killed. Is this what people want to go back to? Hell, it has started already.
Teo, thanks for the response but no where in my post is it stated or suggested I support a centralized economy instead of the free market because its simply not true. I agree with the points made by Observer and would add, the underground US economy is bigger than its ever been in history, as high as 2.5T in some estimates. Much of the money being extracted from the country is unaccounted.
so unreal

Rome, NY

#29 May 23, 2012
supply side wrote:
Let's make it simple. Rich invest in companies to produce innovative products to lower the cost of living for consumers. In doing so they hire people.that's how jobs are created. They risk their capital, and expect a big return on their investment. Not every idea turns into a Coke or Microsoft, but no one sees that.
The stock market was founded to raise money for. business. It turned into a platform that is exploited by technology and intellect.
Everyday private business owners and investors put their money on the line, and deserve big returns givenn the risk. I think the issue is their is a lot of money sitting on the sideline because no one in business sees a demand or havee faith in the president's policies.
Lets make it more simple, competition is the key to lower prices. Most innovation is developed by engineers/techs/students who create small businesses that are bought out or become corporations. The rich will leverage that innovation for more profit. For example, the electric car is already here, has been for sometime. I wont get into the tactics some use to delay. What's important is we currently don't possess an infrastructure to support wide scale implementation. The rich or a private/public partnerships are required for such innovation to go mainstream and be cost effective for users.
checked again

Cicero, NY

#30 May 23, 2012
Went to the Hope House today to find the jobs that are not created by the rich. founds lots of people without jobs and without the ability to create jobs. I don't understand?
so unreal

Rome, NY

#31 May 23, 2012
checked again wrote:
Went to the Hope House today to find the jobs that are not created by the rich. founds lots of people without jobs and without the ability to create jobs. I don't understand?
let me help you out. Go the store a few buildings down where a clerk sits or the one a block the direction.
so unreal

Rome, NY

#32 May 23, 2012
should read "a block in the other direction"
Asking

Boston, MA

#33 May 23, 2012
So Anyhow wrote:
The wealthy are wealthier than they have ever been. So, guys -- where are the jobs?
Think about what you hear every day.
1. The rich are evil
2. the rich should pay their fair share.
3. Tax the rich.

Tell me then, where is the impetus for investment. The current administration is union friendly, prone to try to regulate everything and ha sthe opinion that it is government and not investors that hold the key to economic success. Given these things is it any wonder that the people with money to invest are either sitting on the sidelines or investing in other parts of the world where they won't be punished should they be successful?

"Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand is a about 1000 pages and some parts are a very tedious read. The story in a nutshell is about a society that busts the collective balls of the rich and the innovative captains of industry. Their government through taxation, regulation and wealth redistribution cause the real producers in society to go on strike and disappear. You can imagine what happens to the economy and to society when that happens. The book is somewhat prophetic and kind of answers your question about where the jobs are. Atlas is shrugging and the jobs have moved to "Galt's Gulch". To get those jobs back the U.S. has to stop punishing and vilifying the people who really are the engine of the world.
Thebasics

Rome, NY

#34 May 23, 2012
To Educate One Hundred wrote:
The fundamental requisite is to nationalise the means of production and commit to a centralised economic structure.
Yea this really worked out great where it was done- USSR, East Germany, many African countries. Everyone is equal, all are poor!!!
Thebasics

Rome, NY

#35 May 23, 2012
So Anyhow wrote:
The wealthy are wealthier than they have ever been. So, guys -- where are the jobs?
The job market has shrunken for a number of reasons. They include:1. We compete in a global economy. Our business costs and regulations are not competitive globally.2. Our businesses are frozen, sitting on cash not knowing the fiscal future due to Obamacare, the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cuts which takes place on 1/1/13 3. The wealth of the American consumer has declined between 30%-40% due to the housing crash. 4. There are not more rich people than ever. In fact, under Obama the number of those labeled "rich" has declined. By the way, that raises an interesting question, what is rich?5. Government debt, spending, taxes and fees have all grown. See our local economy, 6. The number of "wealthy" has and always be small. That is why any discussion of matters like jobs, taxes and economic impact is a red herring.
Asking

Boston, MA

#36 May 23, 2012
Thebasics wrote:
<quoted text>The job market has shrunken for a number of reasons. They include:1. We compete in a global economy. Our business costs and regulations are not competitive globally.2. Our businesses are frozen, sitting on cash not knowing the fiscal future due to Obamacare, the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cuts which takes place on 1/1/13 3. The wealth of the American consumer has declined between 30%-40% due to the housing crash. 4. There are not more rich people than ever. In fact, under Obama the number of those labeled "rich" has declined. By the way, that raises an interesting question, what is rich?5. Government debt, spending, taxes and fees have all grown. See our local economy, 6. The number of "wealthy" has and always be small. That is why any discussion of matters like jobs, taxes and economic impact is a red herring.
This is a great post.

It underscores one of the things that I've always thought was a problem when discussing things like this. Terms like "rich" and "fair" are relative. Everyone has different criteria for defining them and an opinion as to who qualifies under each. You know what they say about opinions don't you?

What you've written is pure fact and common sense. Does it surprise you that many don't understand this the way you've explained it? It surprises me and I don't understand how anyone could not see this.
so unreal

Rome, NY

#37 May 23, 2012
Thebasics wrote:
<quoted text>The job market has shrunken for a number of reasons. They include:1. We compete in a global economy. Our business costs and regulations are not competitive globally.2. Our businesses are frozen, sitting on cash not knowing the fiscal future due to Obamacare, the expiration of the Bush/Obama tax cuts which takes place on 1/1/13 3. The wealth of the American consumer has declined between 30%-40% due to the housing crash. 4. There are not more rich people than ever. In fact, under Obama the number of those labeled "rich" has declined. By the way, that raises an interesting question, what is rich?5. Government debt, spending, taxes and fees have all grown. See our local economy, 6. The number of "wealthy" has and always be small. That is why any discussion of matters like jobs, taxes and economic impact is a red herring.
You makes some valid points. Consider: 1. The US was also competing in a global economy during the 1990s during arguably the greatest economic expansion in our history. Corporate outsourcing helped create competitive programs abroad in smaller economies. We are just as competitive or more but now have more competition, in part due to our own making. 2. I disagree with your second premise as I believe this is just a talking point. Taxes and health care changes aren't stopping businesses from investing where they see a profit. If left uchanged the tax rate would be the same as the 1997 budget which led to one of the greatest economic expansions in US history. 3. I agree the dramatic spike in foreclosures the prior year led to an eventual collapse in 2008 but I don't think it affected 30-40% of consumer spending. Possibly that percentage of individual/family wealth from household equity. 4. I don't see how the number of rich is even relevant to the discussion. 5. Gov't debt is a major drag on the economy. Consider the bush tax cuts and Afgan/Iraq war account for 4.5T of that debt. Economic changes in the economy account for 3.5T, and stimulus spending to lift the economy after 2008 crash 1.4T. Government spending is slowly declining as the private sector is slowly recovering. Taxes have not gone up which part of the reason we're still carrying as much debt. Fees? I don't know what you're talking about there. 6.I don't know where you're going with that either. For the last time, the rich do not create the majority of jobs in America. Never have and probably never will.

Asking, please don't spin this healthy debate into a discussion on the criteria of wealthy or rich. If it makes you feel better we can use the top 5%, 3%, or 1% makes no difference to me. Its inconsequential to the conversation.

“...Strike one”

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#38 May 23, 2012
EVERYTHING FOR EVRYONE -NOTHING FOR ONESELF
Asking

Boston, MA

#39 May 23, 2012
"Asking, please don't spin this healthy debate into a discussion on the criteria of wealthy or rich. If it makes you feel better we can use the top 5%, 3%, or 1% makes no difference to me. Its inconsequential to the conversation. "

I beg to differ. It is very relevant for as long as Democrats seek to pit the electorate against wealthy people. If we use the top 5% the threshold is just north of $150k a year. That is not "rich". If we go up the ladder to the top 1% that threshold is just south of $350k a year. Also not "rich". Comfortable? Yes. Rich? No. Rich is when the money works for the person and the person has invested enough that they no longer have to work for the money. That's my definition.

Now consider the fact that the top 1% pay about 38% of all federal taxes and the top 5% account for about 58% of all fedreal taxes paid. Then, about 50% of wage earners in the US pay no federal taxes at all with a small percentage of those actually getting a rebate check. Is that "fair"? That isn't my definition of "fair".

Like I said. rich and fair are relative terms and your definitions depend on where one is politically or economically. One's definitions affect how one votes and how one looks at everything. So yes, it is relevant and it does matter in the context of this conversation. Otherwise it ends up being an emotional rant based on class envy. In my opinion that is how the Democratic left wants to frame this because of its' widespread emotional appeal to those who are less fortunate, less educated and have an entitlement mentality.

A year or so ago when the "Bush Tax Cuts" were originally scheduled to sunset, why did congress vote to extend them?

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#40 May 23, 2012
It really isn’t fair to use the economy of the 90’s as a benchmark. The 90’s was the era of the internet stock bubble. That would be equivalent to using the housing market of the last decade as a benchmark for today’s housing market. The economy was artificially inflated due to the over-pricing of E-companies and technology stocks. When that bubble burst (as it was bound to do) it took the stock market, the U.S. economy and eventually the global economy with it. The same thing happened a few years ago when the real estate bubble burst.

It is vitally important to remember that the economy is cyclical. Left to its own devices it would remain fairly steady. However, when banks, businesses and governments get involved the economy will become unstable. Toss in oil prices, weather extremes, political shifts, immerging market trends, new technologies, wars, etc… and the market can become extremely unstable. That said, the economy has a way of correcting itself. You will notice that large rises (or drops) in the economy are usually followed by large drops (or rises). It is similar to a stone being thrown in a still pond; the waves that form will vary with the size of the stone. Large crests will be followed by large troughs. Eventually the water will even out again if not affected by outside sources.

Politicians (from either party) have very little control over the economy. Political interference can sometimes shorten or lengthen the instabilities or cause them to become more or less severe but they cannot prevent them or correct them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Utica Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
pervert alert 1 hr GERBER Utica 1
Adirondack Bank Genesee Street Roof Top Strip C... 1 hr GAR GA MEL 1
Ocean Blue restaurat 1 hr Brainy 24
i want a wife, but not with my girlfriend 2 hr Brian Osso the Tu... 1
News Despite Multi-Billion Dollar Nanotech Investmen... 2 hr Irish Mayor Needed 2
I want to meet bosnian guys 2 hr Bozonians 4
Recommendations for a Veterinarian in Utica area 3 hr Chocolate Lab 1
Utica Is a Great Place to Find a Job! 3 hr Chico 41
Ironic Nano news announced before elections 13 hr Echo 65
Jill Reale of WKTV (Jan '09) Mon Diction 252
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Utica Mortgages