spoiler wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
How?
what's in that budget that is sinking the US boat? Perhaps if government wasn't so HUGE they would not need so much taxes
Quote:
So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"
Quote:So, since 2001, we have seen decades of drop-off in world education rankings? Could it possibly be that other countries are just getting better and better, while we are stagnant? Could it also be related to crack-mammas, inbred bubbas, and a general breakdown of the traditional home? Nah....its cuz we aren't gathering enough taxes right?
With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Way to not answer the question. You have never, ever, provided any evidence which supports your theory that raising tax rates pays off debt and lowering them causes it.spoiler wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
How?
what's in that budget that is sinking the US boat? Perhaps if government wasn't so HUGE they would not need so much taxes
How?
The tax cuts does not pay off National Debt and/or deficit.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit fromShow us all how it's low taxes, and not the ever-expanding entitlement mentality which causes these things.
Kevin Trudeau wrote: Write a friggin book with no paragraph spacing whydontcha? It sure makes for a nice cluttered read.You're welcome. It's mostly for the dyslexic F-ers here.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws.
Quote:
The rest of your post was a quasi-coherent rant against rich people and I believe, a perception that I am unemployed and waiting for a handout. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion.
Quote:
So, since 2001, we have seen decades of drop-off in world education rankings? Could it possibly be that other countries are just getting better and better, while we are stagnant?
INFIDEL wrote:My God, GT is a fu-king soscolist!
And Mr White, SHHH, you cant talk bad about social welfare programs, there GREAT for the nation.
It breeds lots and lots of good democrats!
(fact.)
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Goodwrench,
I am not unemployed, and still fail to see where you came up with that idea. I've been with my current employer for two months. Prior to that, I was with the same employer for almost fifteen straight years. For final clarification, I am not the one collecting "disability" payments from the taxpayers. On the contrary, I am helping pay said disability payments.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:
---
I get a kick reading Scott's or Kevin's or what ever you want to be for the month... as the poor schmuck defends the rich. What's even more hilarious is that he criticizes the people who receives some sort of social help too.
So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?" Why the one way street Scotty? Also nobody is "envious" (BTW, lamest excuse on Earth) of the rich that earn/steal/ W-E a large sum of money. This is America, and if you want to earn that kind of money, you gotta get your ass up and move. Not sit on you f-ing laurels and hope and pray Mr.Moneybags hires your lazy ass, no brains, that will never amount to being your very own boss of something.
The majority of the ones planning to be taxed higher are rightfully so. How? Blame our Foreign Policy for one. You want to your expand a certain industry and corporation in a not so neutral territory around the world? Create wars, Coup d'état, lay out security all in the name of "National Interest." Now: PAY FOR YOUR SH!T. The people getting taxed higher can afford to pay the higher taxes that Corporate/Industry lobbyist and politicians spend on. You make $X millions/billions amount, after taxes you could still afford your yacht, plane, Rolls Royce, while still be able to expand your business via our Military. No?
I love reading "jobs will be cut." But no CEO talks about adjustment from the top in terms of salary/benefits/perks to accommodate for the extra tax, but the easy way out is to just fire the employees to make up lost revenue. And yet here we are; defending them like we owe them something and if they're saints. You look like a "yes-man" for the group that does not pertain to you. Tell me Scotty, when someone stabs you on your back, do you say thank-you and give them $10... "here, lunch is on me," all with a smile?
Since the 80's, the upper class (1% ) have been spoiled in low taxes and any mention of higher taxes turns into a outrage... mainly from the poor, driven from the top through the media; and you all don't see this!
With these low taxes, look at our ranking in the world, in terms of education, medical, business technology, infrastructure, etc. We fall and fall every decade, because the funding is stretched thin and is used in areas where the country really does not benefit from.
Lastly, here's an idea... instead of waiting on Mr. Moneybags to put out a "Help Wanted Ad," why don't you get off your ass and become an entrepreneur of something, anything? Be your own boss, don't rely on anyone, you set your salary, hours, etc. "Gasp! That involves work and investment... . You know what... I rather criticize the other guy for not working and getting social help." Right Scotty?
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:Kevin Trudeau wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T wrote:So Scotty in your eyes it is perfect to to have racial, religious warfare but it is a sin to have "class warfare?"Wrong- I posted on the mosque debacle in new york, saying they had the right to put it there, despite that I thought it was offensive. I may not like the muzzies, but I recognize their right to the same rights I enjoy under our laws..
To bad your history here proves otherwise.
And since you need a history reminder: ... .
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Very clever. What do you think would happen if we had an world full of shop and factory owners, with no laborers? You guys are simple minded twats. History is full of people who, laid off from their jobs, embarked on their own and started their own business....and hired people to work for them. Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work, is ignorant. The saddest part, is that you know its ignorant.
.
Take Back the Republican Party wrote:A VERY intriguing philosophical look at how those who "depend" on others to provide jobs and an income are at least as "dependent" as those who are unwilling and/or unable to land one of those jobs. I agree. As an entrepreneur myself, I can really relate to this.
And Scotta...don't fool yourself for one minute. You do not "pay" for disabled people. Your employer does. The money you think you "pay" was never in your possession in the first place. The only place it REALLY comes out of is your employer's profitability, for he has to raise your alleged wage to cover it. If it were not for this "contribution" that you THINK you are making, your wage would be lowered by that same amount, for that would then be the prevailing wage for the job.
Want to REALLY contribute? Take Goodwrench's advice and go into business for yourself. Then you can learn what providing for others' welfare (be they your employees, or the unemployed) REALLY means.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Very clever. What do you think would happen if we had an world full of shop and factory owners, with no laborers? You guys are simple minded twats. History is full of people who, laid off from their jobs, embarked on their own and started their own business....and hired people to work for them. Trying to equate someone who is an able-bodied willing worker, with someone who cannot or most often, will not work, is ignorant. The saddest part, is that you know its ignorant.This country was made up of industries and entrepreneurship. PERIOD. Today it is borrow and what can someone else do for me: you're an example of it. What I said was to show you have options to the lamest excuse of: "if we raise the taxes on the rich we won't have jobs. Turns out the excuse is BS and that you're too lazy to exercise your options or maybe to dumb to figure them out, you decide.
sndsgood wrote:Put it like this, so we are all on the same page. When there is a argument of: "we should not raise taxes, because jobs will be lost or no jobs will rise" and that argument is done in the USA, the only thing it tells me, you can't do sh!t for yourself. Because in country that you can do all sorts of things to better your self in order to provide for yourself, here now what you are doing with this argument is, bitch for the sake of bitching, while still being peon for the rich. If they don't hire... fine... f-them and do something on your own. But no it, it is allot easier to "bench-bitch" and criticize others who are on the same boat with the folks who does not provide a better life for themselves through government. No rocket science here.
to me they are entirely diffrent and no where near the same. the person that is working is putting in WORK he is going to a company. and doing what the company asks for 40hours or whatever a week, and in return he is paid for his services. not much diffrent really then the owner of the company who who provides a product or service to someone else and is paid for it. only real diffrence between the two is the owner is going to collect the majority of the money. the guy sitting there collecting the check from the goverment isn't doing any WORK for the money he is receiving. being a laborer or worker is not welfare, its being paid for doing a job. workers who depend on the company for there paychecks are no diffrent then the company who depends on its customers to keep the company in business.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Michael, the very fact that you are able to sit and type at a computer, tells me that you ARE able to work. Perhaps not drivimg a truck, but you could be trained in a new line of work, no?
And goodwrench's attempt to equate laborers working for an employer as being akin to wellfare recipients is boneheaded. Now, I think his end goal is to prove how we are
all interdependent on one another, and therefore, all equal, and by that, should all be sharimg equally in the profits. He just wont actually say it.
sndsgood wrote:your going to be dependant on your customers goodwrench, without them your business will fail. even a business owner is dependant on people.
Quote:You mean tax incentives... not lower the rate for the 2%: which we are talking about here... . But sure, I'm for incentives that will promote growth on actions that one takes, instead of tax breaks that only hopes you take action.
there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for people to start a business just as there are things the goverment can do to make it more attractive for a business to add employee's. if you want to push people to start a business as some people choose to do then you make the evnirement easy and favorable for them to do it.
Quote:Apparently you still don't get it. Just read up there.
wanting the goverment to provide for you while doing nothing in return is allot diffrent then working every day and being paid for your work. i dont know how you can't see that.
Quote:
im sure your employees will love working for you if your just going to consider them welfare recipients.
Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:If they don't want to hire... fine... f-them and do something on your own. But no it, it is allot easier to "bench-bitch" and criticize others who are on the same boat with the folks who does not provide a better life for themselves and rely through government. No rocket science here.
sndsgood wrote:i looked thru a few definitions of the word welfare and none of them stated someone who gets paid for doing work. that isnt what welfare means. and no your employees arnt your welfare recipients they get paid for doing work just like you will get paid for providing a customer pizza. they arn't relying on you as a form of welfare. they are getting paid for the work they did for you. they are relying on thereselves to come in and do the job every day. don't pay them. they will take you to court because they earned that money. your not giving it to them out of the generosity of your golden heart, they provided a service and you are required to pay them. no diffrent then someone paying you for a pizza, you are required to make and hand over the pizza. that is not welfare. about the only diffrence between the worker and the owner is the risk, this is the reason why the owner gets most of the money because your taking most of the risk.again id hate to be an employee for you if that is how you feel. that is really messed up thinking. i can see you having a huge turnover rate if that's your thinking.
sndsgood wrote:
i get it, your basically trying to say go out there and do it on your own
Quote:
Lastly, no one is interdependent on one another. It is a matter of becoming independent... period.
Kevin Trudeau wrote:Goodwrench hates big corporations
Quote:
which explains his disdain for the working man
Quote:
I guess he doesn't realize, that after and if his business grows, he will NEED to hire workers, and will be DEPENDENT on them to show up for work on time. And unless he plans on opening a farm, growing a milling his own flour, tomatoes, spices...opening a butchery and processing plant, owning his own fleet of trucks to haul his goods around....(get it?)He'll be beholden to someone else in order to be successful.
Quote:
I can't quite put my finger on it, but my gut tells me, that he'd like to severely amend, or utterly abolish our captialistic society, and move to some type of egalitarian communist/ agrarian society.
sndsgood wrote:
most companies don't love to layoff anyone. a good workforce is hard to find and the last thing you want to do is hire someone, train them and then lay them off. but sometimes you have to do whats best for the company. sometimes your choices are dont lay anyone off and let the company run into the ground sending everyone out of work. or you make cuts go lean and the company and a good percentage of your employees get to keep there jobs.