My case in point: in 2012 the Koch brothers made 11 billion in profit yet still laid off over 25% of their workers in Green Bay, many middle aged. Now they need to find retraining, find a job, and still support their families. Most ended up losing their homes or at the very least downsizing. What CEO has every lost their home, needed to be retrained, or lost their life savings trying to make ends meet after a business went under or they got fired?
What I heard from Obama is that one man cannot make a successful business without good workers and good workers should be recognized for their contribution to the organization. Currently the climate is that only the CEO is of any importance and should take advantage of their workers any way they can.
LOL
as far as the jobs, why don't you ask obama where they are ? because he said that the unemployment rate would not go over 8% with the stimulus and that at this point in time it would be 5.5%. what is it, something like 3 straight years of unemployment being over 8%.
raising taxes on the "rich" will go a long way toward fiscal responsibility?????? do you really believe the words that are coming out of your mouth?????
Try this on for size dumbo: Q. if obama gets his tax increase on the "rich" people like he wants, do you know how much money it will bring into the feds coffers on an annual basis??? A. a bit over $4 billion. that's it.
Q. do you know how much our deficits have averaged over the last 4 years???? A. $1.1 trillion.
so by my reckoning, the money brought in by taxing the very people who are already paying a large amount of taxes will bring in about 4/10 of a per cent in extra taxes to the feds. now just how do you reconcile your statement that it will "go a long way towards fiscal responsibility"???????????
try turning off npr and stop reading the nyt and actually research the facts for yourself.
So basically yeah.... Obama was full of it.
I'm not rich, so I'm not worrying about it. Why don't they just create a freaking flat tax rate and be quiet about inequality already?
....I think money brings with it certain responsibilities - and with responsibilities come obligations. If they're really that rich though, they'll just buy off government officials and create the law the way they see fit. ....hmmmm
Every individual is responsible for their choices: whether or not to use the system in place, hire workers, invest in themselves, or diversify their business. Many people choose not to go out on a limb and create a business because of the large risk. Those people become employees (or welfare recipients) and can be moderately successful, or can even invest their money, take a calculated risk and become wildly successful or possibly fail. Even though the system in place uses cooperation between people, each individual is still responsible for their...
Every individual is responsible for their choices: whether or not to use the system in place, hire workers, invest in themselves, or diversify their business. Many people choose not to go out on a limb and create a business because of the large risk. Those people become employees (or welfare recipients) and can be moderately successful, or can even invest their money, take a calculated risk and become wildly successful or possibly fail. Even though the system in place uses cooperation between people, each individual is still responsible for their own success. Just like if I create a cure for cancer... Maybe I need ten thousand people to start producing the vaccines, even then, I alone am responsible for the creation of the PRODUCT itself. The money is an afterthought, the success is in the creation of the product. Whether or not people want to be employed in its creation, or buy the vaccine, is now THEIR choice. Most people who are rich are responsible for their success. That's simply not a popular belief because it means the poor are also responsible for their lack of success. Unfortunately whether or not something is popular or not has nothing to do with whether or not it is true.
Part of personal responsibility is our responsibility to the community, its growth and to it's future. Personal responsibility as defined by the fringe right views each individual as a selfish island. Reading of Donne is recommended. Fiscal Constraint - really? Fiscal restraint as defined by a party who turned a surplus to deficit and ran two un-financed wars and didn't have the kahonas to tell people that wars cost money AND then doubled down with a tax break and said 'deficits don't matter'. Is that the kind of fiscal restraint we need?
First there has been no government budget surplus since 1835. Unfunded liabilities are not budgetary items, you are believing a lie. Tax breaks do not lead to deficits spending more than you have does. I never claimed either party understands fiscal restraint, it is antithetical to politics. Hard to get elected unless you can show you are redistributing money back to your electorate.