Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Middle Class?Follow

#52 Sep 06 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,993 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Why should you work less and make more money? So you can spend more time with your family.

Maybe I'm using my job as a plausible excuse to spend less time with my family, smart guy. Didja ever stop to think about that? Smiley: mad


(Kidding!)


If you hate your family that much, work 3 jobs, save for a year and start a business; the business of playing everquest at an office park.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#53 Sep 06 2012 at 1:01 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You know who thinks that way? People without money ambition.


Not everybody aspires to be wealthy. I don't buy it when someone like Yodabunny says they don't care about the money (everybody does), but I do believe he lacks the ambition to do anything about it.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#54 Sep 06 2012 at 1:07 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,058 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Perhaps there's a level of intellectual laziness involved but if people are happy working their 9-5 for average pay then that's the way they should live and I think a lot more people than you realize are quite happy living as middle class families.

Life isn't about money, money is a tool, it's a means to an end, if you've already found your end then all you need is maintenance cash.


You know who thinks that way? People without money.
We all have some money.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#55 Sep 06 2012 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,058 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
You know who thinks that way? People without money ambition.


Not everybody aspires to be wealthy. I don't buy it when someone like Yodabunny says they don't care about the money (everybody does), but I do believe he lacks the ambition to do anything about it.

If he doesn't aspire to be wealthy, why would he use his ambitions to make money?

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 9:10pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#56 Sep 06 2012 at 1:09 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
You know who thinks that way? People without money.


Oh, and here I was thinking we were talking about rich people. I pursue things that make me happy, money may be a part of that but it's only a part to a certain point (Gotta have food, house, cable, movies, coffee, car, maybe a fishing boat) so I only seek it to that point then my energy is directed to other things that make me happy.

I'd probably give away a lot of my money if I was rich. Heck, I already give away a chunk of my money and I'm certainly not rich.
#57 Sep 06 2012 at 1:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
BrownDuck wrote:
Not everybody aspires to be wealthy. I don't buy it when someone like Yodabunny says they don't care about the money (everybody does), but I do believe he lacks the ambition to do anything about it.


Oh I do care about money, I just make enough to cover my needs so it's not an issue. Making more money will not make me happier. My current ambition is to get into shape, and that's going quite well. My previous big goal was to quit smoking and I'm smoke free for 2 years now. I have plenty of drive/ambition/willpower and I direct it where I want it, not towards making money. If I decide at some point that money will make me happy I will point that drive and ambition in the appropriate direction.
#58 Sep 06 2012 at 1:24 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

Oh I do care about money, I just make enough to cover my needs so it's not an issue. Making more money will not make me happier. My current ambition is to get into shape, and that's going quite well. My previous big goal was to quit smoking and I'm smoke free for 2 years now. I have plenty of drive/ambition/willpower and I direct it where I want it, not towards making money. If I decide at some point that money will make me happy I will point that drive and ambition in the appropriate direction.


The 10 starving children who just died because you didn't make enough money to donate food to them say keep on truckin man, your lack of materialism impressed them. They would have sent a letter but their hands were ravaged by malnutrition into claw like clubs only suitable for bashing their own skulls while praying for the sweet embrace of death.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Sep 06 2012 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,434 posts
I believe they said that $70,000 a year is the maximum happiness point. After that, you may have more money, but it doesn't necessarily translate into more happiness.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#60 Sep 06 2012 at 1:26 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

I believe they said that $70,000 a year is the maximum happiness point. After that, you may have more money, but it doesn't necessarily translate into more happiness.


They got that datapoint because the people making 20 Mil a year were too busy nailing high priced escorts 9 deep to bother with surveys.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#61 Sep 06 2012 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,993 posts
Who said? People making 70k looking to validate thier self worth? People making significantly more than that looking to keep more money on the table for themselves? What about 70k makes it such a golden number?
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#62 Sep 06 2012 at 1:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Who said? People making 70k looking to validate thier self worth? People making significantly more than that looking to keep more money on the table for themselves? What about 70k makes it such a golden number?


Quote:
With every doubling of income, people tended to say they were more and more satisfied with their lives on a 10-point scale – a pattern that continued for household incomes well above $120,000.

But when asked to assess the happy hours of the previous day – whether people had experienced a lot of enjoyment, laughter, smiling, anger, stress, worry – money mattered only up to about $75,000.


First thing that came up on google.

TL:DR = Rich people don't laugh enough.

Edit: Also, seriously, who links to the PNAS journal main page and not the actual study? Smiley: mad

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 12:49pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#63 Sep 06 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
If you hate your family that much, work 3 jobs, save for a year and start a business; the business of playing everquest at an office park.

Not exactly a growth industry.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#64 Sep 06 2012 at 1:42 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,058 posts
I think risk aversion comes into play as much as ambition.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#65 Sep 06 2012 at 1:46 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,058 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
If you hate your family that much, work 3 jobs, save for a year and start a business; the business of playing everquest at an office park.

Not exactly a growth industry.

It doesn't even sound fun.

You could build Norrathland though with animatronic gnolls, roaming god characters and the Tube ride.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#66 Sep 06 2012 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,993 posts
Y
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
If you hate your family that much, work 3 jobs, save for a year and start a business; the business of playing everquest at an office park.

Not exactly a growth industry.


It's a niche market, but by running an outsourced plat farming team, you can keep costs low, and rake in those ill gotten gains.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#67 Sep 06 2012 at 1:50 PM Rating: Good
******
43,920 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
If you hate your family that much, work 3 jobs, save for a year and start a business; the business of playing everquest at an office park.
Not exactly a growth industry.
It's okay, you can make the tough choice of changing water companies for the cooler and become profitable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#68 Sep 06 2012 at 1:56 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
Oh I do care about money, I just...


My dearest wish is to monopolise entirely the means of production. The only thing of value anyone else will have is their own flesh. Pimps will eke out a living selling the emaciated hordes to me, that I might fuck them with a billion golden ******

Don't pretend you're any different, man. They call it the American dream for a reason.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#69 Sep 06 2012 at 2:06 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Gbaji, you still evidently do not know how economics works. Maybe if you spent more time reading what experts say instead of making things up you would. But then you would have to acknowledge experts and facts and we know how you feel about those.

As for why they are good for the middle class, until you understand how economics works you wouldn't be able to accept the answer. Ill just put it this way...under Clinton the middle class was expanded and people did well, under Reagan and Bush it shrank and people did not do well. Coincidentally the economic viability of the US reflected the growth and recession of the middle class.

If you understood how economics worked you wouldn't even have to ask this question. But for a short answer, ill paraphrase Bill Clinton: "The Democrats believe that together we can achieve anything, The Republicans believe that you better succeed alone, or you are screwed."

____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#70 Sep 06 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

We peaked at just over 10% unemployment in late 2010 and should have rapidly dropped to below 6% within a year after that point


Wait, that didn't happen? Was JoJo The Employment Unicorn too busy pooping his magical job apples elsewhere? In what fantasy land was there an expectation that unemployment was going to be at 6% in 2011? What a bizarre straw man to measure success against. Seems to strange to be arbitrary, did you read it on some whackjob blog? I'd be fascinated to know the source. Not that unemployment actually ever got 10% in 2010, but that's the least strange thing about it.


You're correct. The technical high was in Oct 2010 at 10%. However, it hovered within a few tenths of a percent until Nov of 2010 (which was the date I was thinking of), at which point it finally began declining. However, unlike past recessionary patterns, it didn't drop down to anywhere near the pre-recession levels.

It's not arbitrary Smash. Every recession for the previous 30 years followed a pretty standard 3 year cycle. 6 months of recession, about a year and a half after that point of high unemployment, then about a year of rapid recovery (for unemployment, other factors tend to recover earlier. Obama knew this going in. He counted on it. It's why he made the statement that if he didn't have our economic problems licked within three years, he'd be a one term president. It's also why the Dems made such a big deal about summer 2010 being the "summer of recovery". Because past recession patterns indicated that unemployment should have started a rapid decline starting in July of that year. But it didn't. It stayed high until November and then didn't come all the way down.

I can link to the employment numbers showing this pattern if you really want (although I've linked to them in past threads). It's not hard to see, and it's also not hard to see that the Dems were acting on the assumption that those patterns would be repeated regardless of what they did in terms of spending/stimulus/etc.


They were wrong. And it's absolutely ridiculous for you to stand here today and pretend that no one had an expectation that we should have been fully recovered sometime in mid to late 2011. That was exactly the expectation that your own party was operating on, and you **** well know it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Sep 06 2012 at 2:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Great, now this thread is about gbaji's mental illness again.

Nice work rdmcandie, you worthless piece of ****.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#72 Sep 06 2012 at 3:17 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
Kavekk wrote:
They call it the American dream for a reason.


I'm Canadian.
#73 Sep 06 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Quote:
Great, now this thread is about gbaji's mental illness again.

Nice work rdmcandie, you worthless piece of sh*t.



Sorry I didn't read the rest of the thread past Gbaji's post, and wanted to sound smart by using the words facts, and experts. Ill go back to lurking now.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 5:41pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#74gbaji, Posted: Sep 06 2012 at 4:32 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Um... At the risk of stating the obvious: Clinton wasn't in office the last 4 years. Obama was. So how about we look at what he's done during that time period? Because BS speeches aside, Obama has more or less done the opposite of what Clinton did back in the 90s. And we got the opposite result. Shocking isn't it?
#75 Sep 06 2012 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
I'm still waiting for...
I'm still waiting for actual hard irrefutable evidence that lower taxes always mean more jobs are created, rather than just increased wealth for stockholders.

So, y'know, cite, please.



Here's a thought: link tax breaks to businesses on a $:jobs created scale. You make x jobs, you get y tax break. If you don't create the jobs, you don't get the break. That seems perfectly reasonable, don't you think, g?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#76 Sep 06 2012 at 4:42 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm still waiting for someone to detail one policy the Dems acted on in the last 4 years which helped the middle class. It's really easy to say the words "Our policies have helped the middle class". As I've stated several times, this seems to be repeated constantly at the DNC. I'm just curious what evidence supports that claim. Just repeating the claim again isn't sufficient.


https://www.dropbox.com/s/kc8fyc58k9rilxw/new_jobs_through_july_2012.png

Just for you. Explicit detail directly from the BLS.
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#77 Sep 06 2012 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

They were wrong. And it's absolutely ridiculous for you to stand here today and pretend that no one had an expectation that we should have been fully recovered sometime in mid to late 2011. That was exactly the expectation that your own party was operating on, and you **** well know it.


Nope. Not close to reality, sorry. If you want to find a quote from 2009 or someone in the administration targeting 6% unemployment for 2011, that'd be great. There isn't one, of course, so probably best for you to ignore this post. By you, of course, I mean humanity.


____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#78 Sep 06 2012 at 5:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

I'm still waiting for someone to detail one policy the Dems acted on in the last 4 years which helped the middle class.


Healthcare.
Payroll Tax Cut
Repealing DADT
Ending the war in Iraq
Killing Bin Laden
Pushing for Quantitative Easing
Rescuing GM
Unemployment benefits extensions.
Foreclosure avoidance policies through HUD.
FHA streamline refinancing.
Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan
Lilly Ledbetter Act

Wait, one? Really? You can't find one? You really are rock fucking stupid, aren't you?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#79 Sep 06 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
None of those count. They only count if you detail them in a way that Gbaji will agree that they count. Which, of course, he'll never do but... just do what Gbaji says you have to do, **** it!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Sep 06 2012 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Gbaji, you still evidently do not know how economics works. Maybe if you spent more time reading what experts say instead of making things up you would. But then you would have to acknowledge experts and facts and we know how you feel about those.

As for why they are good for the middle class, until you understand how economics works you wouldn't be able to accept the answer. Ill just put it this way...under Clinton the middle class was expanded and people did well, under Reagan and Bush it shrank and people did not do well. Coincidentally the economic viability of the US reflected the growth and recession of the middle class.

If you understood how economics worked you wouldn't even have to ask this question. But for a short answer, ill paraphrase Bill Clinton: "The Democrats believe that together we can achieve anything, The Republicans believe that you better succeed alone, or you are screwed."


Um... At the risk of stating the obvious: Clinton wasn't in office the last 4 years. Obama was. So how about we look at what he's done during that time period? Because BS speeches aside, Obama has more or less done the opposite of what Clinton did back in the 90s. And we got the opposite result. Shocking isn't it?


I'm still waiting for someone to detail one policy the Dems acted on in the last 4 years which helped the middle class. It's really easy to say the words "Our policies have helped the middle class". As I've stated several times, this seems to be repeated constantly at the DNC. I'm just curious what evidence supports that claim. Just repeating the claim again isn't sufficient.



At the risk of stating the obvious you did not say anything about the last few years. You asked what have the democrats done for the middle class, I cited the works of Bill Clinton a democrat who arguably did more then any other president for the middle class in America. JFK may have started the American dream but Clinton was the one who insured it for at least a generation of Americans.

He recovered the middle class from destruction of the Reagan era, and Bush term, and Bush Jr. finally killed them off in his tenure.

What has Obama and the Democrats done in general. Well specifically he stopped job loss, and led to its current growth. Be it through private or public investment his policies have allowed the middle class to stabilize. What policies affected this.

Tax Relief.
Health Care Reform.
Economic Stimulus.

Those three specific policies have allowed the middle class to stabilize, and this is being reflected in the turn around of American economic health. The country is not booming yet, but it is now outpacing Canada as the #1 growing economy in the industrial world, a title Canada held since collapse began in 2007 as it was largely unaffected by the recession.

To say that the Democrats have not fought for the Middle class is absurd, they have done nothing but change policy to support the middle class. From spending to saving. Of course you would need to acknowledge factual math and I know you hate truth.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#81 Sep 06 2012 at 6:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

I cited the works of Bill Clinton a democrat who arguably did more then any other president for the middle class in America.


I'm all for the rah rah go team thing occasionally, but what the fuck? FDR *created* the middle class in America. LBJ elevated millions to the middle class in America. Clinton worked on welfare reform, DOMA, etc. and happened to be office for a timeframe that corresponded with a massive bubble with full employment and ludicrous housing and stock market inflation. He's an amazing politician. One of the best ever, no argument. He's a below average President.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#82 Sep 06 2012 at 9:57 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Clinton revived the middle class that was lost under consecutive terms of Republican trickle down economics. You say that it was the time frame that was the thing. Oddly enough it was the Clinton White House that promoted that time frame. The invested billions of dollars into new technology and expanding and improving old technology. The Clinton White House created Silicon Valley, arguably the greatest hotbed of innovation since The Manhattan Project. On top of that his state produced 12 consecutive years of balanced and surplus budgets, which he later accomplished as president with the nation economy of the most powerful economic nation in the world.

How did he do it? He invested in the middle class through:

Tax Relief.
Health Care Reform.
Economic Stimulus.

The middle class is the representative body of the economy, it was almost killed off in the 80's and was destroyed in the 00's. Clinton delayed its destruction in the 90's and the very economic advisers Clinton had, are the guiding hand in Obama Economic policy. Pretty good company I would think.

Fact is the Republicans don't give a care for American prosperity, you may be patriotic, but you are not for American prosperity, Prosperity is not a thing that happens over night, prosperity is a thing that take time to grow an nurture. Clinton began growing it, and then it went ignored for 8 years, and needed to be started again. The same thing happened in my country do you remember when your dollar was worth 1.50 CDN? I do. I also remember how after half a decade of financial sacrifice (following your countries savings and loan crisis) my nation grew to having a higher valued dollar than yours in the early 00's long before the recession.

That is because in my nation we had a growing middle class, and in your nation your president Bush was killing the middle class.

But I know you don't like factual conversations so I will just TLDR with this.

Obama said that likes the middle class, I do too, so I can relate.

Edited, Sep 6th 2012 11:59pm by rdmcandie

Edited, Sep 7th 2012 12:00am by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#83 Sep 06 2012 at 10:04 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

Oh I do care about money, I just make enough to cover my needs so it's not an issue. Making more money will not make me happier. My current ambition is to get into shape, and that's going quite well. My previous big goal was to quit smoking and I'm smoke free for 2 years now. I have plenty of drive/ambition/willpower and I direct it where I want it, not towards making money. If I decide at some point that money will make me happy I will point that drive and ambition in the appropriate direction.


The 10 starving children who just died because you didn't make enough money to donate food to them say keep on truckin man, your lack of materialism impressed them. They would have sent a letter but their hands were ravaged by malnutrition into claw like clubs only suitable for bashing their own skulls while praying for the sweet embrace of death.

Well if *they* don't have the ambition to make it to the upper class then they deserve to starve to death!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#84 Sep 07 2012 at 7:20 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts

But I know you don't like factual conversations


Possible. Difficult to tell in this instance as you haven't provided any fucking facts that relate to the conversation. Am I supposed to hand-waive away obvious ******** like "Clinton created Silicon Valley" and respond to....what again? I understand that you have no fucking clue what you're posting about and that usually bluffing your way through indignantly is enough to save face, but not this time. I'm extremely familiar with the Clinton administration. I worked in it. I'm also familiar with the "economic team" you refer to. Larry Summers is borderline retarded. Those guys could fuck up the organization of a one car parade. They are the reason the stimulus was ludicrously undersized. The policies they enacted under Clinton, primarily deregulation paved the way for the very crisis they had to deal with.

So. please, spare me your douchebag attempts at taking the moral high ground and go back to betting on which lake is going to freeze first or trading maple syrup futures or whatever it is you useless ******** do when you aren't too busy weighing in on US politics.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#85 Sep 07 2012 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,920 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
I'm Canadian.
My condolences.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#86 Sep 07 2012 at 8:17 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
I'm Canadian.
My condolences.


It's ok, I compensate by watching US politics.
#87 Sep 07 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Yodabunny wrote:
I'm Canadian.
My condolences.


It's ok, I compensate by watching US politics.


I'm usually pretty tolerant of alternative lifestyles, but this scares me. Then again, at least we're not Quebec... Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#88 Sep 07 2012 at 9:35 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
Our politicians aren't nearly as crazy which is a good thing but rather boring popcorn fodder so I watch the US sitcom..err politics, instead. QC on the other hand has lost its marbles once again so I might have to tune into that a bit more for the lulz.
#89 Sep 07 2012 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
******
43,920 posts
If you want true political entertainment, British Parliament is the way to go. They actually have bar fights.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#90 Sep 07 2012 at 10:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
****
4,274 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
If you want true political entertainment, British Parliament is the way to go. They actually have bar fights.


"So I've been looking over the blueprints for the parliament buildings"

"Yes, they look quite nice"

"You know what would boost productivity and lead to better governance?"

"Incentives to enhance cooperation among the politicians?"

"No, a bar, an exclusive bar, with a view."

"MY GOD YOU'RE A GENIUS!!!"
#91 Sep 07 2012 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,468 posts
Hey our Politicians are crazy too Yoda. Who can forget The Thrilla on the Hilla.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#92 Sep 07 2012 at 5:11 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,739 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'm still waiting for...
I'm still waiting for actual hard irrefutable evidence that lower taxes always mean more jobs are created, rather than just increased wealth for stockholders.


That depends on how you're using the term "always". Employment is a function of revenue. Should be obvious, but I state it just in case there might be some people reading this who haven't realized that you can't employ someone unless your business earns enough money to do so. Similarly, job creation is a function of profits. Assuming that profits means money earned in excess of that which was spent earning it (which includes existing labor costs), then to create new jobs you must have some profit to do so.

Does this mean that every single time anyone's profits increase they'll hire more people? No. But as a trend across the economy, the greater the average profit rates of businesses the faster new jobs will be created. Everything else being the same, if you increase profits in hand by 10%, job creation will tend to go up 10%. You just have to understand the difference between employing people in existing jobs and actually creating new ones.

Quote:
So, y'know, cite, please.


Really? you need a cite to accept that if you need $1M seed money to open a new factory, and your existing factories generate $250k/year profits, then the difference between a tax rate of zero and a tax rate of 20% is the difference between it taking you 4 years to open your next factory or 5 years (250*4=1000 vs 200*5=1000). So if that new factory represents 100 new jobs, then you're changed the average job creation rate for that business from 25 jobs a year to 20 jobs a year. Even the most mathematically challenged should also notice that the rate of decreased job creation is exactly proportional to the rate of tax increase.

This really requires no more than some basic math skills. Assuming that the owner is saving up to open a new factory anyway, this math works. We can assume cases where he's not, but then he's not regardless of tax rates. So among those businesses who would create jobs, they will create them faster if the tax burden on their businesses is lower. It's pretty much axiomatic if you stop and think about it.


Quote:
Here's a thought: link tax breaks to businesses on a $:jobs created scale. You make x jobs, you get y tax break. If you don't create the jobs, you don't get the break. That seems perfectly reasonable, don't you think, g?


No, it's pretty stupid really. There's a pretty obvious problem with that and its effect on the middle class. Can you figure it out? I'll give you a hint: You've just created a financial incentive to hire more total workers while paying the same amount for labor. Basically encouraging sweat shop style labor and discouraging professional skilled (and higher paid) labor. Your example is a great case for why government attempts to meddle in the free market tend to have unforeseen consequences.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#93 Sep 07 2012 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,852 posts
Quote:
Everything else being the same, if you increase profits in hand by 10%, job creation will tend to go up 10%.


Cite because I'm calling *********
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#94 Sep 07 2012 at 5:26 PM Rating: Good
Apparently, garbaji, reading comprehension is not your strong suit. In your scenario there, we give the employer a constant tax break in the hope that he will open new factories or whatever and make new jobs.

In my scenario, the employer creates the jobs in order to receive a guaranteed tax break. Can you noodle out the difference?


ALSO: What idig said, which, y'know is what I said.

Edited, Sep 7th 2012 5:28pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#95 Sep 07 2012 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Gbaji wrote:
Um... At the risk of stating the obvious: Clinton wasn't in office the last 4 years. Obama was. So how about we look at what he's done during that time period? Because BS speeches aside, Obama has more or less done the opposite of what Clinton did back in the 90s. And we got the opposite result. Shocking isn't it?


For what its worth, I'd be totally ok if Obama reinstated Glass-Steagall.
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


#96 Sep 07 2012 at 6:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Gee Gbaji, since corporations are breaking all records in profits, there should be no unemployment problems at all! Unless it's not about profits, but DEMAND!

____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#97 Sep 07 2012 at 6:41 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,254 posts
Quote:
Everything else being the same, if you increase profits in hand by 10%, job creation will tend to go up 10%.


Naturally, they'll be in Bangalore; but still... jobs!

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#98 Sep 07 2012 at 7:04 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,979 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Gee Gbaji, since corporations are breaking all records in profits, there should be no unemployment problems at all! Unless it's not about profits, but DEMAND!

I don't get the bullshit gbaji's slinging. Profit doesn't promote growth; profit promotes accumulation of wealth. This is the kind of hoax that perpetuates the "trickle-down" economic joke. You can't grow unless there's a demand to be met. There's no demand if there's no consumer or customer.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#99 Sep 07 2012 at 7:29 PM Rating: Good
Capitalism is Gbaji's religion, and the GOP are his clergy. That pretty much sums up Gbaji.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#100 Sep 07 2012 at 7:35 PM Rating: Good
Muggle@#%^er
*****
19,852 posts
Technogeek wrote:
Capitalism is Gbaji's religion, and the GOP are his clergy. That pretty much sums up Gbaji.


Hey now, that's insulting to capitalism. It loves *** marriage...
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#101 Sep 08 2012 at 10:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,431 posts
Employment is a function of revenue.

No. Did you mean demand? Because revenue makes no fucking sense even in a laboratory perfect rational market scenario where every actor has complete information acts unerringly to their enlightened self interest. Did you mean profit, maybe? That's not the same as revenue you fucking buffoon, (and it's also wrong). Did you mean, perhaps, protectionist tariffs, and IP laws? You know, the reason you're employed?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 56 All times are in CDT