• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

GOP 2012, Class Warrior edition

Deuce said:
Spoken like someone who has never been in charge of hiring people.

I'm not hiring right now, and it's not for a lack of money. It's for a lack of demand. Customers are the job creators.
Click to expand...

Yep, corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash and they aren't spending it because they can wring enough work out of their existing employees to meet demand.
 
haymarket said:
Why would you assume that cutting taxes on the rich suddenly causes them to hire more people? Businesses hire when they need more employees to do more work to fill more demand. Cutting taxes on the 1% does not do that.
Click to expand...

Very funny!
 
AdamT said:
A study by Citizens for Tax Justice concludes that the proposed tax plans of all major GOP candidates would hugely benefit the top 1% of income earners, as opposed to the poor and middle class who would see scant gains.



taxplans.JPG


http://www.ctj.org/election2012/gopprimary_all.pdf
Click to expand...

good

that's a main reason why I am going to vote against Obama

In the long run, the dems tax schemes hurt the middle class even worse than the rich though
 
Amigo said:
Very funny!
Click to expand...

Very funny!?!?!?! That post makes no sense to what I wrote

Why would you assume that cutting taxes on the rich suddenly causes them to hire more people? Businesses hire when they need more employees to do more work to fill more demand. Cutting taxes on the 1% does not do that.

In debate, you actually respond to the content of a post when somebody points out why you are wrong. Perhaps you could point out WHY you think I am wrong?
 
Amigo said:
Cutting taxes on the rich will HELP the economy, and create jobs!
Click to expand...

I have yet to meet a person that advocates this position that can actually explain it. My guess is that you can't either. If you can not explain its basic rudiments, then you shouldn't make these kinds of statements lest you sound like a fool trumpeting the positions of others.

I am happy to explain to you why tax cuts do not work in all circumstances, especially this one; and explain how cutting spending is about the worst thing we can do in a bad economy (as I have previously on this board). I can explain my assertions, please to the same.
 
Last edited:
Amigo said:
Cutting taxes on the rich will HELP the economy, and create jobs!
Click to expand...

Untrue. And patently, factually so.

Were it true, the 2000s would've been a great decade, because Bush cuts taxes not once, but twice. And the 2000s were the worst decade for economic growth since the Great Depression.

Further, taxes have dick-all to do with job creation. ANY good business owner will tell you this.

If a business-owner could reap 100% of the profit for his good or service by doing everything himself, he would do so. Employees are only the result of demand - either the owner's demand for time NOT working or customer demand being too great for the business owner to meet on his own. Thus, the business owner seeks the right wage to get the best employee he can find for the best value. If he underpays, he gets employees who don't help him meet demand. If he overpays, he loses money.

If Bill Gates would've knitted tea cozies instead of creating computers, Microsoft wouldn't have nearly as many employees as it has today. Why? Because there is much greater demand for computers than there is for tea cozies.

ALL economies grow because of consumer demand and ONLY because of consumer demand. China is the finest example. Even with the global collapse, their growing middle class keeps demand SO high that their economy can't help but grow.

It's all about demand. Always has been and always will be - despite what Republicans try to say.
 
AdamT said:
Yep, corporations are sitting on a mountain of cash and they aren't spending it because they can wring enough work out of their existing employees to meet demand.
Click to expand...
They are probably sitting on mountains of cash in case the idiot in the white house does something that will cause them to need that cash
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Untrue. And patently, factually so.

Were it true, the 2000s would've been a great decade, because Bush cuts taxes not once, but twice. And the 2000s were the worst decade for economic growth since the Great Depression.

Further, taxes have dick-all to do with job creation. ANY good business owner will tell you this.

If a business-owner could reap 100% of the profit for his good or service by doing everything himself, he would do so. Employees are only the result of demand - either the owner's demand for time NOT working or customer demand being too great for the business owner to meet on his own. Thus, the business owner seeks the right wage to get the best employee he can find for the best value. If he underpays, he gets employees who don't help him meet demand. If he overpays, he loses money.

If Bill Gates would've knitted tea cozies instead of creating computers, Microsoft wouldn't have nearly as many employees as it has today. Why? Because there is much greater demand for computers than there is for tea cozies.

ALL economies grow because of consumer demand and ONLY because of consumer demand. China is the finest example. Even with the global collapse, their growing middle class keeps demand SO high that their economy can't help but grow.

It's all about demand. Always has been and always will be - despite what Republicans try to say.
Click to expand...

and hiking taxes only on the rich does dick for the good of the country. It doesn't decrease the deficit because the dems have proven that they won't cut government spending when taxes are raised and they will just spend it on more buy the vote programs. the only way for taxes to decrease the deficit is to have a tax system that makes more government spending PAINFUL for most voters. (thus politicians who spend more face the wrath of voters who are being subjected to tax hikes). Jacking up taxes on corporations certainly won't increase jobs or corporate expansion either. Thus there is no sound reason for jacking up taxes on the rich in the current environment. It is popular though because it appeals to class envy and the dems pretend it will help with the deficit
 
TurtleDude said:
They are probably sitting on mountains of cash in case the idiot in the white house does something that will cause them to need that cash
Click to expand...

If they were that stupid they wouldn't be where they are.
 
AdamT said:
If they were that stupid they wouldn't be where they are.
Click to expand...

actually having cash reserves to deal with the uncertainty of an incompetent president is smart
 
TurtleDude said:
actually having cash reserves to deal with the uncertainty of an incompetent president is smart
Click to expand...

oh the hilarity of when the economy has good news we watch conservatives scramble to say that the president doesn't have an actual effect on the economy... then conversely, we get this. lol
 
poweRob said:
oh the hilarity of when the economy has good news we watch conservatives scramble to say that the president doesn't have an actual effect on the economy... then conversely, we get this. lol
Click to expand...

I have no idea whom you are referring to but its certainly not me
 
TurtleDude said:
actually having cash reserves to deal with the uncertainty of an incompetent president is smart
Click to expand...

Actually it would be stupid to hold back trillions in capital on the incredibly unlikely chance that the President would commit political suicide by harming the economy. The term "breach of fiduciary duty" springs to mind.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Untrue. And patently, factually so.

Were it true, the 2000s would've been a great decade, because Bush cuts taxes not once, but twice. And the 2000s were the worst decade for economic growth since the Great Depression.

Further, taxes have dick-all to do with job creation. ANY good business owner will tell you this.

If a business-owner could reap 100% of the profit for his good or service by doing everything himself, he would do so. Employees are only the result of demand - either the owner's demand for time NOT working or customer demand being too great for the business owner to meet on his own. Thus, the business owner seeks the right wage to get the best employee he can find for the best value. If he underpays, he gets employees who don't help him meet demand. If he overpays, he loses money.

If Bill Gates would've knitted tea cozies instead of creating computers, Microsoft wouldn't have nearly as many employees as it has today. Why? Because there is much greater demand for computers than there is for tea cozies.

ALL economies grow because of consumer demand and ONLY because of consumer demand. China is the finest example. Even with the global collapse, their growing middle class keeps demand SO high that their economy can't help but grow.

It's all about demand. Always has been and always will be - despite what Republicans try to say.
Click to expand...

As a business owner, I approve this message. Making investment decisions in a business is all about demand for the product or service. Tax considerations are, at best, a tretiary consideration.
 
AdamT said:
Actually it would be stupid to hold back trillions in capital on the incredibly unlikely chance that the President would commit political suicide by harming the economy. The term "breach of fiduciary duty" springs to mind.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in a list of companies that are holding back "trillions in capital". Got a list ?

P.S. Obama has already committed political suicide by harming the economy. That's why most Americans want him to lose next November.
 
Gill said:
I'd be interested in a list of companies that are holding back "trillions in capital". Got a list ?

P.S. Obama has already committed political suicide by harming the economy. That's why most Americans want him to lose next November.
Click to expand...

PolitiFact | Obama says companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets

P.S. Obama has successfully averted a full-on depression and a double dip recession, while overseeing 22 straight months of employment growth and record corporate profits, despite inheriting the worst economy since WWII.
 
AdamT said:
PolitiFact | Obama says companies have nearly $2 trillion sitting on their balance sheets

P.S. Obama has successfully averted a full-on depression and a double dip recession, while overseeing 22 straight months of employment growth and record corporate profits, despite inheriting the worst economy since WWII.
Click to expand...

That's not a list of companies, it's a statement that 'companies' as a whole are holding onto their capital. No surprise there since many have said it is because of the uncertainty and fear of regulations brought on by the Obama administration.

P.S. you have zero proof that Obama did anything more than waste taxpayer money by giving it away to campaign donors and unions.
 
Gill said:
That's not a list of companies, it's a statement that 'companies' as a whole are holding onto their capital. No surprise there since many have said it is because of the uncertainty and fear of regulations brought on by the Obama administration.

P.S. you have zero proof that Obama did anything more than waste taxpayer money by giving it away to campaign donors and unions.
Click to expand...

The figure is a Wall Street Journal estimate of cash on balance sheets. Sorry, but I don't have time to audit all the companies on the S&P to produce your list.

Uncertainty about the situation in Europe, along with weak demand, coupled with near-nonexistent inflation, accounts for the conservative cash position. If you think it's fear of possible future regulation then you really don't know jack about business or the economy.

FYI, the disbursement of stimulus funds was painstakingly detailed on the government website established for that purpose. If it was just goingt to Obama's friends then we wouldn't have seen so many examples of anti-stimulus Republican legislators taking credit for projects funded by the stimulus.
 
AdamT said:
The figure is a Wall Street Journal estimate of cash on balance sheets. Sorry, but I don't have time to audit all the companies on the S&P to produce your list.

Uncertainty about the situation in Europe, along with weak demand, coupled with near-nonexistent inflation, accounts for the conservative cash position. If you think it's fear of possible future regulation then you really don't know jack about business or the economy.

FYI, the disbursement of stimulus funds was painstakingly detailed on the government website established for that purpose. If it was just goingt to Obama's friends then we wouldn't have seen so many examples of anti-stimulus Republican legislators taking credit for projects funded by the stimulus.
Click to expand...

From your link:
More important, though, is that Obama's statement implies companies are sitting on a full $2 trillion that could be immediately invested in business expansion. And that's not right.

"Much of this money is already committed -- it must be used to pay wages, suppliers, rent, utilities, etc.," said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "But, there is little doubt that companies have a great deal of cash sitting around that they could use to invest, if they wanted, even if $2 trillion is more than a bit of an exaggeration."
Click to expand...
 
Gill said:
From your link:
Click to expand...

Yeah, no kidding. I don't think Obama was implying otherwise. The difference between cash on hand now and during normal times is JUST about $500,000,000,000.
 
Gill said:
That's not a list of companies, it's a statement that 'companies' as a whole are holding onto their capital. No surprise there since many have said it is because of the uncertainty and fear of regulations brought on by the Obama administration.

P.S. you have zero proof that Obama did anything more than waste taxpayer money by giving it away to campaign donors and unions.
Click to expand...

Funny, there were a lot of Republicans bragging about how many jobs that money was creating.

And then they'd go on TV and screech about how it was being wasteful.
 
AdamT said:
Actually it would be stupid to hold back trillions in capital on the incredibly unlikely chance that the President would commit political suicide by harming the economy. The term "breach of fiduciary duty" springs to mind.
Click to expand...

lets see-Obama has harmed the economy and what many liberals think would help the economy harms it for businesses
 
TurtleDude said:
lets see-Obama has harmed the economy and what many liberals think would help the economy harms it for businesses
Click to expand...

You have offered no proof of that claim.
 
TurtleDude said:
remind me what the employment level is right now and what the deficit is
Click to expand...

Remind me of the difference between correlation and causation?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom