• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

AS DEFICIT EXPLODES, GOP DEMANDS EMERGENCY TAX CUT FOR THE RICH

. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.
 
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink.
What's the league minimum pay for a professional in the NFL, Halfie?
Just how far have you gone from 'people living in poverty' to pretend your position is rational?
Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.
i could possibly care a little less about NFL teams.
A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?
you can find, please, any place i suggested those self-important cheats would have to give up a single trophy?
Is that a democrat tax plan the GOP is blocking?
If so, cite your source.
Or shut up on this conservative feargasm.

So, all fluff and derail aside, the GOP still wants to cut rich taxes only to make the rich happy, not to preserve any jobs, not to provide virus tests or vaccines, not to even build the fucking wall.
And you think we should kiss rich butts and thank them for below half of the jobs in America.
Because reasons.
 
. If you can't lift yourself out the way countless others have, then you failed.
So, that's WHY you think people in poverty deserve it.
But blaming tge poor for being poor still means you think they derpserve to be poor.
I suppose you think Jesus taught that, Too?

Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.

You're really bad at creating analogies.
 
Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink.
What's the league minimum pay for a professional in the NFL, Halfie?
Just how far have you gone from 'people living in poverty' to pretend your position is rational?
Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.
i could possibly care a little less about NFL teams.
A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?
you can find, please, any place i suggested those self-important cheats would have to give up a single trophy?
Is that a democrat tax plan the GOP is blocking?
If so, cite your source.
Or shut up on this conservative feargasm.

So, all fluff and derail aside, the GOP still wants to cut rich taxes only to make the rich happy, not to preserve any jobs, not to provide virus tests or vaccines, not to even build the fucking wall.
And you think we should kiss rich butts and thank them for below half of the jobs in America.
Because reasons.

Actually, the NFL is an interesting study in economics. While the teams don't share their trophies, the league is a revenue sharing entity, where each team contributes a bit under half their gate goes to a communal pool, and ticket sales and merchandise sales are all split equally among the teams. Too, the players get the lion's* share of net profits - with about 60% of the take going to wages.

*Not the Detroit variety
 
Outliers are not the norm, Keith.

Most everyone works a job where they work for a rich owner, which means it's in the worker's best interest to keep the company going so they don't close and lose their jobs.

You can't have it both ways, Keith. You can't blast the rich for creating all these jobs and then turn around and also blast the rich when the company closes. We see how many people complain when the company goes under. They know they need the rich guy's company to survive at that point.

When the rich start a business they are not necessarily thinking about creating jobs and helping people, but turning a profit....getting even richer. If they could do that through automation, even better for them.

The rich hire people, not necessarily through the goodness of their heart or social conscience, but because they need workers to run their business....paying as little as possible wherever possible while charging customers whatever the market permits. Maximising profits, minimising running costs.

That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.
 
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.

Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!
 
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.


What you conveniently overlook is that the rich, in order to turn a profit, hire people because they need people to run their business. Without which the business does not run and does not turn a profit for the rich....also, that it is the power imbalance between individual workers and the management that does not allow the worker to negotiate a better pay rate. Some businesses love nothing better than to pay workers in third world countries 50 cents an hour in order to increase profit, while charging customers top dollar for their products and services. It often comes down blatant self serving greed.

Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!

There is a vast gulf between the 'majority of the profits' and a fair and decent living wage for the workers who make that profit possible.

That is the issue.
 
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

It's supposed to be a motivator. I'm sure there's some people in the world who are perfectly happy working at McDonald's and whistle while they work there. They understand they have no skills and they have come to terms with it. They are making the best of their life. The ones who complain about those jobs are the ones who realize they wasted their potential and could've done something better. When I was growing up my parents always used to ask me, "You don't want to end up like that guy, right?" when we would go out to eat at a fast food place. I would say, "No way!"

The people in those jobs have very little skills. They should not be rewarded with more money for that. People are exactly where they belong in the world.

ah.. that explains it. it was your parents that were complete pieces of shit that taught you to be this way. makes sense.
 
Who should get the majority of the profits if not the owner? You are giving up the incentive for people to open businesses if they can not receive the majority of the profits.

Imagine Bill Gates coming out with Microsoft and the home computer and the government says, "Thanks for the idea, Bill! The workers own it now!" Where is Bill's incentive for innovation? Everything would stagnate!

The free market breeds innovation. "I need to build the best product possible or else someone else will overtake me in the market!" Competition and ideas flourish!

There is a vast gulf between the 'majority of the profits' and a fair and decent living wage for the workers who make that profit possible.

That is the issue.

Personally, I'm not such a greedy piece of shit that I want a majority of profits. I would be fine, as an investor, just getting a plurality of profits over a fixed period, and then moving on to new investment.
 
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)
 
Does every team win the Super Bowl ever year, Keith? No, but many teams come close. Some teams just flat out stink. Do I think the teams that stink deserve to win the Super Bowl? No, they stink. They have to earn it by playing hard.

A team like the Patriots should not have to give one of their 6 trophies to a franchise that stinks, don't you agree?

People always say sports are a metaphor for life.

You're really bad at creating analogies.


Where does curling fit in as a metaphor for life? Asking for a friend.
 
That is a distinction without a difference. Sort of like someone saving a drowning kid because they wanted to help the kid vs someone helping the drowning kid because they wanted to be a local hero. Both mindsets end up with the same result: the kid being saved from drowning.

You can not pay people a doctor's salary for stocking shelves at a company. You just can't. Then nobody would want to become a doctor. There's a reason your skill set determines your job.

Got no skills? Then practice saying, "You want fries with that?"
Got skills? Then you'll be in a high paying job.

View attachment 26426

Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)

Somebody has to serve tables, cook, clean make beds, etc....not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs. Doing necessary work should pay well.

In a wealthy nation such as America, nobody should be struggling if working full time.
 
Disagree--if more people get the skills for better jobs it will raise the pay for the shit jobs also because you won't have as many people available who can't do better.

(And it will cut down on the number of shit jobs as some will be automated.)

Somebody has to serve tables, cook, clean make beds, etc....not everyone can be doctors, lawyers or entrepreneurs. Doing necessary work should pay well.

In a wealthy nation such as America, nobody should be struggling if working full time.

Everyone should be making enough money to provide the opportunity to invest in their own future. We can't say we have capitalism unless everyone gets to have capital. Just like any of the other isms. Communal ownership for everyone except the elite isn't communism. Government ownership for everyone but the oligarchs isn't socialism. I'm a capitalist and we have to fix our system so everyone makes enough money to have a savings account and has the opportunity to increase their financial security.
 
you always say that when i answer the question you literally asked.
Soory thrre are people who have jobs you never considered.
But still, what was you point dupposed to be?
That somehow, the existance of rich people in the economy means the party tgat prides itself on fiscal responsibility, whise president fucking PROMISED to reduce the natl. debt, is NOT whoring itself out to the rich at the cost of the nation's deficit?

Poor people don't create jobs for themselves, Keith. They get them from rich people who open businesses..

When Bill Gates started Microsoft, how many jobs did he create?

Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.

When Steve Jobs started Apple, how many jobs did he create?

Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.

When Zuckerberg started Facebook, how many jobs did he create?

I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?
 
Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.

When Steve Jobs started Apple, how many jobs did he create?

Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.

When Zuckerberg started Facebook, how many jobs did he create?

I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?

You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.
 
Technically he co-founded Microsoft with Bill Allen, and they created 2 jobs, filled by Allen and Gates. Neither was rich at the time, and at the end of the second year in business, Microsoft revenues totaled a whopping $16,005. Two years later, when they moved from New Mexico to Washington, the company was 13 employees strong.



Technically, Apple was founded as a partnership between Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne. None of them were rich at the time, and in fact Steve Jobs' father was a Muslim Syrian immigrant, you know, one of those poor brown people from the wrong religion who will destroy our country if we let them in. Anyway, they created two jobs, one for each of the Steve's, with Ronald Wayne acting as an advisor.



I don't know as much about the history of Facebook, but I would assume it was a similar story and he created all of a job or two. Although he was from an upper middle class family, and was Harvard educated, they certainly were not in the 1% of uber wealthy Americans.

Competition in the free market is the best thing about capitalism, Keith.

Sure, but what does that have to do with rich people creating jobs, since none of the people in your example were rich when they started their business ventures, and they initially created very few jobs?

You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?
 
You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?

What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.
 
You are just being very dense. Of course it took them a while to build up the company! How many employees do they have NOW? Thousands for each company!

This wouldn't have happened if they didn't open those companies.

But all your fluff about rich people not letting workers run the company, they'd fuck it up?
Your examples were not rich people when they started. And they quite apparently did not guck it up. So, who's being obtuse?

What you are doing is skating on an ice lake around the crack pretending the crack is not there, Keith.

You insist we need to give a tax cut to the rich so they'll keep making jobs, but your every justification either conflicts with reality or conflicts with another of your justifications.
I'm not the one on thin ice, Halfie.
 
Back
Top Bottom