IF ROADS, BRIDGES, AND TEACHERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUCESSFUL BUSINESSES...ARE THEY ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FAILED ONES???!!!
damnyoumaggot
2012/08/06 14:59:13
|
|
|||||
|
70 votes
|
|
52% | ||
|
24 votes
|
|
18% | ||
|
41 votes
|
|
30% | ||
Get out your solar powered, Solyndra calculators and try out some ObamaMath.
Mr. Obama has told us that sucessful businesses are built by the collective not the individual. That everyone had help along the way and thats what built your business. Not that you are smarter or you work harder than anyone else. Bridges, roads, teachers and the internet (all claimed under the mantle of Gov'ment by Mr. Obama) is what gave you your sucess...So is this a two way street, Sir? What about the failures in life, in business? Are you and you Gov'ment internet, road, bridges, teacher responsible for that as well? Or do you only want credit for positive outcomes and no blame for negative ones....?
Meanwhile...elsewhere....
Mr. Obama has told us that sucessful businesses are built by the collective not the individual. That everyone had help along the way and thats what built your business. Not that you are smarter or you work harder than anyone else. Bridges, roads, teachers and the internet (all claimed under the mantle of Gov'ment by Mr. Obama) is what gave you your sucess...So is this a two way street, Sir? What about the failures in life, in business? Are you and you Gov'ment internet, road, bridges, teacher responsible for that as well? Or do you only want credit for positive outcomes and no blame for negative ones....?
Meanwhile...elsewhere....
Read More: http://washingtonexaminer.com/solyndra-takes-the-g...
Equally important The cut was from 91% to 70%. Few are talking about restoring a 91% rate.
Reagan cut taxes from 70% to about the current level but later increase it slightly, because the government needed more money. Now we are talking about starting from much lower rates thus any change would have a much smaller affect.
Reagan also stimulated the economy with star wars, a program to put up a space station and help for the states. He called for all this spending in his State of the Union speeches so Democrats can't take credit for it.
As to Bush he had the lowest job growth of any President in the last 50 years.
What you're saying is that JFK was wrong in his reasoning to cut taxes across the board. That it wasn't the people being able to keep more of their money, which meant they spent more and invested more, that stimulated the economy and brought unemployment down under all three tax cuts? It was really government spending that did it? LOL.
JFK rejected the idea that we can borrow and spend our way out of tough economic times. Instead, he argued for tax cuts, including corporate tax cuts. Here are some quotes from JFK himself.
The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system — and this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963. . . .
Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability and to stimulate the modernization, replacement, and expansion of our productive plant and equipment.
And accordin...
What you're saying is that JFK was wrong in his reasoning to cut taxes across the board. That it wasn't the people being able to keep more of their money, which meant they spent more and invested more, that stimulated the economy and brought unemployment down under all three tax cuts? It was really government spending that did it? LOL.
JFK rejected the idea that we can borrow and spend our way out of tough economic times. Instead, he argued for tax cuts, including corporate tax cuts. Here are some quotes from JFK himself.
And according to you, the Reagan tax cuts didn't really spur economic growth, it was more government spending? Seriously, no really, seriously, you're actually saying that the star wars program of the 80s brought unemployment down, not the Reagan tax cuts?
Oh, and the Bush tax cuts really didn't bring unemployment down from 6.3% in June, 2003 down to 4.4% by May, 2007? That didn't happen? Or it did happen, but it was military spending that we're to congratulate?
And BTW, if you subscribe to the myth that tax cuts cause deficits, you should go look at the federal tax receipts again. Bush’s 2003 tax cuts generated a massive increase in federal tax revenue and were followed by 52 consecutive months of economic growth. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenue increased by $780 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history.
Total federal tax receipts from 2003 to 2007:
2003 -- $1.78 trillion
2004 -- $1.88 trillion
2005 -- $2.15 trillion
2006 -- $2.40 trillion
2007 -- $2.56 trillion
You always get more revenues in a good economy. Bush had an annemic recovery after 2001. Many people never saw it. Obama didn't realize how bad things were and listened to the Chicago school of economics. I've never argued he did more then an average job. On the other hand listening to what the Republicans propose sound like throwing gasoline on a fire to me.
Right. And a good economy is driven by having more consumers purchasing goods and services from more businesses, correct? This spurs economic growth, businesses hire more people, thus lowering the unemployment rate. The more people employed broadens the taxable base and brings in more revenue for the government. This is why we see tax revenues INCREASE when we lower taxes. This is what we saw with the Bush tax cuts, 52 consecutive months of economic growth is hardly anemic. The Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment in Jan. 2007. You do realize we haven't been at or under that rate since the Democrats took over, right???
So what do you think is the best way to instill confidence in consumers so they spend more money? Do you accomplish that by taking more money away from them and letting government spend that money on bankrupt green energy companies? Or do we let consumers keep more of the money they earn and allow them to spend it on market driven products and services? Products and services that actually help the local economy.
I'm pretty sure I already know your answer.......you'll pick the inefficient government to stimulate the economy. A corrupt system that chooses the winners and losers based on corporate campai...
Right. And a good economy is driven by having more consumers purchasing goods and services from more businesses, correct? This spurs economic growth, businesses hire more people, thus lowering the unemployment rate. The more people employed broadens the taxable base and brings in more revenue for the government. This is why we see tax revenues INCREASE when we lower taxes. This is what we saw with the Bush tax cuts, 52 consecutive months of economic growth is hardly anemic. The Democrats inherited 4.6% unemployment in Jan. 2007. You do realize we haven't been at or under that rate since the Democrats took over, right???
So what do you think is the best way to instill confidence in consumers so they spend more money? Do you accomplish that by taking more money away from them and letting government spend that money on bankrupt green energy companies? Or do we let consumers keep more of the money they earn and allow them to spend it on market driven products and services? Products and services that actually help the local economy.
I'm pretty sure I already know your answer.......you'll pick the inefficient government to stimulate the economy. A corrupt system that chooses the winners and losers based on corporate campaign contributions and you'll turn a blind eye to the corruption and cronyism that's played between the business elite and the governing elite. You say you advocate Socialism, but what you're really supporting is soft-fascism.
Liberal teachers are responsible for the violence, ignorance and hate that they teach to school children.
Some choose to drive on those roads and to cross those bridges
Some choose to sleep on the streets and under the bridges
you reap what YOU sow!
Where did the tax dollars come from to pay the salaries of the government employees who built the internet, bridges, roads and teachers?
Answer: Because the only money the government has comes from the money it borrows from a central bank, and later pays back that borrowed money (at interest) with the money the government taxes from private citizens. Then those roads, bridges, internet and teachers was created by the money of the private citizen, and not the other way around.
So, in the end, the government is responsible for the tax funded bridges that collapse, but the private citizen tax dollars are responsible for getting that bridge built in the first place. See how that works?
If Roads, Bridges and Teachers are responsible for successful businesses... they are also responsible for the failed ones. That's just logic.
However Roads, Bridges and Teachers are not responsible alone for successful businesses, they contribute a great deal equally to the success of a business.
Do you think Bill gates could have pulled off microsoft without the ability to count? Do you think Henry Ford's business would have done so well without roads? Do you think a coach company would have done as well as it had without bridges?
In each case the answer is no.
"Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll feed himself and his family for a lifetime".
Maybe Obama can explain to us uninformed Americans why 'collectivise paradises' like North Korea & the former Soviet Union are such utter failures.where the majority of the people live in misery & terror.Except for the few top government officials that rule over the collective!
Is it capitalism when your advertisements, products and media have to be vetted to make sure they coincide with the 'political message'?
Is it capitalism when your government tells you who can and cannot work for you based on whether they support 'The Party' or not? Based on their views?
It may have the façade of private ownership but it is dictated by the Government.
all you do is you meet with heads of different committees of China get their approval and you are good to go... in the US you have to apply for countless permits, step on your own feet with different bureaucratic processes, etc. that end up doing nothing to help spur your business
and they also have much less regulations in China compared to over here... I wonder why China is getting all of our work these days?