Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: If The Rich Are Jobs Creators, Where Are The Jobs? They got Tax Cuts 10 yrs ago!!!

Posted 8 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 9:10 a.m. EST by Puzzlin (2898)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Those making over $250,000 a year have been paying less income taxes because of a unfunded Bush tax cut for the rich that was supposed to help generate jobs. We were promised great prosperity, home ownership, and wealth. So where are the jobs we were promised? The American people are still waiting after 8 years of those Bush tax cuts. The rich still have them. What happened to those rich job creators?

The rich have gotten richer, that's indisputable, and the poor have gotten poorer. Am I living in some kind of twilight zone fantasy nightmare or has the American Dream started leaving us all behind except those 1% who enjoy all the money but just decided not to create any jobs with it.

Isn't this that recycled crap from Reagan, Trickle Down! Well, I think the jury isn't out on this one any more. It doesn't work. For the 1 %, it's time for you to pay for those roads and bridges you drive on, and the employees you hire who are educated in our public schools.

Under Bush, they got these tax cuts in 2003. How's that trickle down theory working? Romney's economic plan is in lock-step with Bush. He wants even more tax cuts for the rich, which is not surprising. Does anyone here learn lessons from the past or are condemned to always repeat our ill-gotten ways?

956 Comments

956 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 15 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Demand creates jobs, not tax breaks.

[-] 22 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

I was about to say the same thing. I'm a small business owner and i will not create a job ever, under any circumstances unless my current employees can not keep up with the demand. You can cut all my taxes. It will not create 1 single job.

[-] 11 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Right! And if minimum wage stays "minimum" there will never be more demand outside of population growth, simply because 15% of America makes minimum wage. If 15% of America never receives a raise, then 15% of America's buying power never increases. Thus demand from that segment of society never increases. It's why the government should subsidize a living wage, and not big oil or other corporations.

After all, it's not the 1% shopping at Wal-Mart or eating in a small mom and pop shop restaurant. It's the lower 99% doing that. And if the 15% making minimum wage keeps coasting downward further and further into poverty, then demand actually decreases. Because that 1% is never going to buy goods from a small store. They shop at Tiffanie's, afterall. Which in itself is a type of financial segregation.

The only way to increase demand, is to increase the buying power of the 99% by giving them a raise. And, it's only logical to start from the bottom up. That's why I joined the OWS movement. To promote the institution of a subsidized living wage with inflation control built in.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And here's the proof, as played out in reality:

GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?

UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.

[-] 2 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Hahaha awesome link. I just shared that on this thread and now I'm seeing you posted it too.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The truth has a way spreading. I like that. Cool.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Wow, this video is excellent, hit the nail on the head. It's sorry that TED rejected it for being too partisan. It seems the stench of money prevents this message from going out. The GOP constantly brainwashes the masses with it's mis-information campaign touting the RICH as the Job Creators.

So true that this is how the RICH keep getting richer. SO as this video shows we should worship them because they create jobs magically out of thin air, how special is that? Hell, we should stop taxing them altogther and we all would be floating in the money. What FOLLY!!!

Thanks Matt, this is a great update to this thread. This one goes to the heart of what OWS is trying make people aware of. Income Inequality.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

except that he speaks in terms f raising the middle class and not the poor

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Your right about that, he did emphasize the middle class. It seems the argument is bolstered by mentioning the middle in respect that as the poor increase they are feed by a dropping middle class.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 years ago

the poor are feed with food as are we all

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

well said, I would add thats 15% of those still working. dont forget the 10% (give or take depending on how they count unemployed) of the unemployed. Whats the % making more than minimum wage that are temp jobs with no benefits.

[-] 1 points by hyarborough (121) 8 years ago

This guy has the right idea. I come from a process control background. If you don't mind wildly fluctuating parameters, don't implement controls. If you need parameters/"things" to operate in a controlled manner, you implement controls. Doing this also gives you a better picture of trends, which gives you control of the general trends also. Weakening and/or removing controls gives you just what you're seeing now. Chaos. Part of governments job is to implement controls. Obviously corporations in the US are either unwilling or unable to do so on their own. You NEVER apply positive feedback in process control. It leads to huge peaks and oscillations in the process parameters. This is what US business has typically done. They attempt to maximize profits, period. You can't do this in any process and expect stability. We know this. This isn't rocket science.

When you stabilize the process, and are able to view trends, it makes it much easier to adjust the system to reach a desired operating point. This is what we need to do. There are literally hundreds of thousands of examples of this type of control all around us. Possibly millions. We know how to do this.

Who cares if a persons wage is subsidized? All of the suggestions regarding adjusting corporate taxes, providing incentives are ultimately subsidies anyway. If the parameter that needs controlling is wages, from the viewpoint of process control, the obvious point of implementations should be wages, not taxes. Trying to control a parameter indirectly only results in sloppy control. You only do that if there's no better choice available, but there is.

We not only need to regulate the input side, but the output as well. Spending. We have the exact same problem. Regulator controls need to be in place, otherwise you have the same wild fluctuations. Back in the 50's-60's Madison avenue discovered the power of advertising. Yet another example of positive feedback. A huge no-no in creating a stable process. The system is out of whack and the process NEEDS effective controls. What we have now is designed to fail, and it shows.

Our politicians are just politicians for Gods sake. They're not process engineers, and why should we expect them to be? There's no reason to expect them to understand the process'. What they should be doing is hiring someone who actually knows what they're doing to design the process. They don't know "Jack" about fixing the problems.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

A very good point for balanced regulation, not too much, or too little. Obviously we missed the bus and when to the side of too little...........

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 8 years ago

Thank you. Your math works. The quote "Demand creates jobs, not tax breaks" has no math incorporated into it. Is there adequate demand in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, and other countries like them? There is no "demand" because people have no money. There is a role for government to play which can reverse this malaise. People who say things like "demand creates jobs" with no further discussion lack expertise and therefore credibility. The human mind is capable of greater insight than reflected by these kinds of comments.

[-] 1 points by hivemind (131) 8 years ago

I say either give them raises to workers or just require any of their debts (credit card, student, etc.) to be a certain percentage of their monthly earnings. I think that would free up more disposable income without giving anyone more money. The banks will still get paid, just not as quickly as they'd want.

[-] 0 points by mtroom (6) 8 years ago

WOW ...You really thought that through....Let me see if I got this right You are saying all 1% ers only shop at Tiffanie's, and never shop or eat at mom and pop stores? That had to be some extensive research to find that info...You stand by the fact that "minimum wage" should be changed to a government subsidized living wage? So, you would like to be an employee of the government? On top of that , how will that create anything except for a government in total control of your life? Do you like your freedom of choice? I can't think for one moment of being a government subsidized employee..The 15% ers you speak of aren't following a dream from the sounds of it...How much of that 15% is moving out of a minimum wage, no raise, non buying power category, into bigger and better positions...And how many new to the work force comprise of that 15%? Your logic has a lot of questions that need answering before I could jump in with both feet. Making more money is up to the individual at hand, jobs, and demand are the key factor...This is how it works...First, you approach said job and apply, Second, you enter into the money you will be paid for such job...At which time you have the choice of excepting said money to preform the service in question or turn it down...Of course the person on the other side of the table will try to pay you as little as possible. That's how it works...This type of system is suppose to push yourself to better things...To seek out better money opportunities a dream so to speak..If you subsidize everyone's income and they all earn the same, where are the hard workers going to come from? Why would I search for a hard labor job if i can make the same pouring a cup of coffee for someone? Some of these big companies are greedy and corrupt, it happens, but most are weeded out by the public in one way, shape or form eventually...To blame the "evil rich" guy is a cop out to the real problem. To give up your freedom to fix it, is insane.

[-] 3 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

AND, we've already given up our freedom. We gave it to CORPORATIONS! lol! Who now run Washington too, using their lobbying and billions of dollars. I read a news article about a Starbucks employee who got fired for making a YOUTUBE video making fun of the company! Wow. I was floored by that news article. Corporations have already taken away our right to free speech, even when it's OUTSIDE of work!

People like you are so clueless, it's laughable.

[-] 0 points by lonespectator (106) 8 years ago

Salam86> it's a shame that your even on here. Your thought process is flawed. You jump from "we" gave our freedom to corporations to a youtube video about Starbucks and free speech. Then you laugh as if you were smart and above others. Not only are you laughable, but you need to go back to your minimum wage job for which you are probably overpaid..now that's funny :-)

[-] 1 points by 1169 (204) 8 years ago

your already controled by government, subsidy or no. Bring back the apprentiship program, every manufacturing, trade, transportation etc job in this country mirror it with one worker, you would not have enough people to fill the jobs.

[-] 1 points by ebri (419) 8 years ago

"WOW ...You really thought that through....Let me see if I got this right..."

Sarcasm immediately categorizes you as ill-intentioned, and completely lacking in credibility. Your spelling and other writing errors also diminish your credibility.

Are you being paid by "Citizens United" or "Americans for Prosperity" to spend your time on blogs?

Would your logic make sense to people living in countries with corrupt governments and huge income/wealth disparities? Over the last 30 years the U.S. has experienced huge increases in these disparities, approaching levels in Mexico and South Africa. Are you in favor of our society resembling those in second and third world countries?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Faith in the free market, the race to the bottom!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Here we come, for the love of money!

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

What percent of 1%ers who do their own shopping, shop at Walmart?

How many eat at McDonalds?

I also wonder how many own BMW? Porsche? Honda?

Demand create jobs-----------------------------------------------------

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

bump it up......................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

pop!

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Also, by that logic, most of that 15% are already employees of the government since they receive food stamps and other forms of help for basic living expenses. In that manner, you've already failed to understand the problem and thus couldn't possibly offer a solution within the context of your statements.

And I guarantee you that the 1% doesn't eat in mom and pop shops. And even if they did, they would account for only 1% of the market share at BEST. That's why your "well thought out" reply is absolutely laughable from an economics perspective. After all, what is more numerous? 1%? Or 15%?

That's right, 15%. And the 1% couldn't possibly equate unless it was in the form of investments, which are actually few and far between for small businesses.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And here's the proof, as played out in reality:

GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?

UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.

[-] 5 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 8 years ago

Thank you. If I'm not buying your product, why would you need to hire more people?

A friend had a business that was on the rise. He had 12 employees. People lost their jobs. He lost demand. Now he employs only himself. And barely that.

[-] 2 points by BLUTODOG (111) 8 years ago

I agree, I owned and ran a small company for 25 yrs. Taxes do not have much bearing on hiring. Demand is everything. Why the retards in both parties believe this myth about taxes is beyond me?

[-] 2 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

Jobs lead to demand as a natural course. It is simply that no company want to be the sucker that hires first and finds no one else following. This is what government is made for. By adjusting tax rates, the cost of not hiring could be worse that the cost of hiring. When companies are induced to hire all at the same time, the economy can take off.

My suggestions to stimulate the economy and promote more equitable sharing of profits,

  1. Lower or eliminate business tax.
  2. Treat capital gains and wages equally for income tax.
  3. Raise income tax rates at the top bracket.
[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

right on !

[-] 2 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 8 years ago

Good idea. The wealthy hate it. So it won't happen.

Unless we make the government more afraid of us than they are of the wealthy.

We have to make them fear our non-violence more than they fear the loss of their campaign contributions.

Something to consider....

[-] 1 points by Faithntruth (997) 8 years ago

It isnt just contributions, it is also the promise of a six figure job on k street when they leave office

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

I entirely agree. There is no better lobbying than occupying.

[-] 2 points by vats (107) 8 years ago

impose tax on companies out sourcing to other countries

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Right. Taxes are at an all time lows, meanwhile, companies are still outsourcing all of our jobs overseas. Tax breaks builds business bureaucracy and DOES NOT create jobs. We've seen this again and again.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ignorance of the truth allows it to continue. We need to wake UP!

Everyone!!!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now...


[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

WAKE UP

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Do it now, take action!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now!!!!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

I agree. However, I think that business taxes in general should be lowered with the loss of revenue made up with larger progressive income rates and capital gains tax. We could designate the largest business tax cuts to companies based on the size of their American workforce. We could go as far as to grant tax exempt status to companies who hire exclusively American workers.

[-] 1 points by vats (107) 8 years ago

You have rightly said, high time this menace called out sourcing is wiped out, it amazing how it works, Americans companies hire foreign workers from india, china etc, in America, now these foreign guys make a deal with the managemnet of the American company and help in out souring work to india, china, etc so again American lose jobs

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

I wonder if at some point companies will just not do business here, if the tax rates become too high. We are a debter nation after all. There are plenty of other countries who can buy goods and services.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I don't think the US market is quite that small yet. Not even close. If we stop buying China would surely collapse.


We're not done yet unless we all become poor, than, yes, the fat lady sings.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

Yeah, but no nation has been conditioned to consume as well as us.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

true, but i think we have seen that people won't buy on credit as much anymore, thus less consuming over all.

i have a feeling that a lot of the good times we experienced was from that credit bubble

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Well good! Then businesses WHO CHOSE to do business in this country might have a chance to succeed! God forbid, a company who hires here in the US having a chance at success once the bottom feeders all ship off for greener pastures.

Besides, you obviously have very little understanding of taxes. Let's talk about taxes on the top 1% throughout history shall we? Eisenhower had taxes set at just over 90%. Nixon had them at 70%. Ronald Regan had them at 50% (the father of modern conservatism! That's what makes your argument such a joke! ), and currently taxes on the top 1% are 35%!

Meanwhile we've seen little growth in the economy as a result of these tax cuts. Instead, we've seen stagnation. An interesting point, is that taxes were set at 29% right before the great depression hit. Low taxes at the top 1% only causes stagnation in real terms for a post-industrial society.

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

i doubt raising taxes will bring us out of this mess. raising taxes will only generate revenue (honestly, it will not even be that much) to pay for social programs.

if Obama or any of our elected officials are serious, they need to look at legislative reforms that would spur economic growth, such as removing oil production moratoriums. stimulus programs will only work for so long, since once those subsidies are gone, construction workers will have less money to spend and we are back at square one.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I more optimistic then that..............................

and the stimulus does and did work...........

Your espousing the narrative of conservatives. That narrative got us to the brink of disaster with no jobs. The so called job creators failed us.

Time for the rich to belly up to the bar, and pay up!

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

neocons and neoliberals brought us here

the thing that has me baffled, is the idea that government can spend a dollar better than the private sector. unless you are for a totalitarian regime, at some point you may have another Bush or Obama or whoever elected who will screw the pooch once again. i would think focusing on liberty and and a free market with out corporatism would be the safest route.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think many don't realize the elephant in the room when it comes to federal budget. Our government spends large portion of it's money on, is DOD - Dept of Defense.

We are spending just shy of 1 trillion per year on that now.

This has severely hurt our country since we ended focused on fighting questionable wars instead of investing in our future (and running up debt, these wars were run on deficit).

The important point, is we need the revenue that rich can provide since they never provided those jobs.

[-] 0 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

agreed with everything up until the last statement about rich never providing jobs

i wish the discussion was, how can we encourage economic growth instead of how can government pay for more programs

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think we need a common goal for us to strive towards as a country. Something like the space program to us the passion to work together and make it happen.

Or green energy, a program to develop alternate energies so we can save our planet at the same time.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

The public sector keeps in mind the peoples's wrath. The private sector only has to keep the share holders' billfolds full of money. Which do you think is a more viable, long term model?

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

public sector doesn't keep in mind the people's wrath. the OWS movement exists because the public sector kowtowed to special interests.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 8 years ago

exactly, they forgot our wrath, now they will be receiving a crash course in the people's constitutional prerogatives, being our ability to redress. The best part of the Constitution, in my opinion. And the reason they, the public officials, lost that fear was that parents abdicated their responsibility to raise citizens. instead they raised consumers. civics is not just an idea; it's a must.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 8 years ago

How about restricting tax breaks to only companies paying living wages and hiring. Every other corporation should have their taxes raised.

[-] 2 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

There could be a set of standards devised that qualifies a company for tax exempt status. One qualification would be to pay at least a living wage. Other qualifications might be environmental standards, or an all American workforce. Draw up the qualifications and let all honest businesses come forward and reap the benefits of zero tax. All the despicable, un-American, greedy, corrupt businesses can continue to bitch and moan until they are driven out of business.

[-] 1 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 8 years ago

Zero tax only if paying a living wage to verifiable American workforce. Punitive tax rates for those who cheat by hiring illegals. And we really need to publicly acknowledge those companies that follow the rules and which don't. The American public is relatively ignorant about the business practices of most corporations. During the gulf oil spill everyone hated BP. But how many Americans know BP's record in regard to employment or environmental responsibility? We are constantly bombarded with advertising for services or products daily, yet have little or no glue about the company behind the advertising. We know most Nike shoes are made in Asia, how many people know New Balance shoe are made in America? Very few Americans bother to find out about business practices of most companies. The only time is when a company does something so egregious as to make the evening news or CNN. We need to have some sort of public acknowledgement for companies that do good every day.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

How are we increase a large tariff tax on all American Imports into this country since they screwed us. This way thoses taxes are funneled back into our system so we can recover.

[-] 1 points by mbarragan (21) 8 years ago

Very sound, I like it. Although i feel the tax rates for those making 50-250K a year should be lowered. And some ultra rich tax brackets should be created. IE tax bracket for 10 mill 20 Mill 100 Mill a year needs to be created.

The tax bracket system is not progressive enough. No way someone making 1 million a year should be paying the same percentage as someone making 100 million a year.

To offset this the ultra rich should have tax breaks available to them if they create jobs in the USA. Lets give them bonuses for creating jobs here not shipping them away. That would make their companies more profitable in the long run as opposed to actions seeking short term profits.

People making minimum wage can't buy the products these companies create. Outsourcing will eventually cause these companies to layoff their own consumers.

America is still the Consumer Machine of the world. Killing it to try and create a new one (China) is ill conceived.

When I think of the modern corporation I think of the Twilight Zone episode where the owner of a manufacturing plant begins to automate all of his employees jobs for profit untill he ends up automating his own...

That dude did what these CEO's are doing. Only its not robots it's slave labor.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

We won't be the consumer machine in the near future. Anyway they don't care because demand is elsewhere now.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

That's a joke. Taxes are at all time lows currently at 35%. Even Ronald Regan had taxes on the top bracket set at 50%. The fact that you've proposed these ridiculous three points just goes to show you lack a basic understanding of economics.

[-] 2 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

I think we agree about the progressive rates, I think the top income brackets should be very progressive and top out at maybe 70% or so. But these levels should be for enormous incomes like 1000x average pay or so. At incomes of 100x average pay the rates may be around 50%. If a few more brackets were added to the current system and capital gains were taxed as income, then it would promote more and more executives (part of the 1%) to demand less and less pay. There simply would be very little return on drawing pay beyond that of 1000 people.

If also business taxes were reduced considerably, it stands to reason that the money companies are not paying to tax and are not paying to executive salaries would instead to to growing the company and creating jobs. In other words, going to the 99%.

One of the reasons I think it would be better to have no business tax is for the purpose of not considering a business as a person. Why does a corporate entity get taxed on its income? Its income is for the enrichment of its stockholders. When they get paid is when the tax should be collected. By taxing a corporation as an individual, they begin to have rights of individuals. Such rights as to lobbying the government for exceptions and loopholes. The most successful businesses are able to mount the most effective lobbying efforts and have got to the point where many of the most profitable companies don't even pay tax at all. In fact some get a refund. This is not a level playing field for small businesses and local businesses.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Wrong, because that 1% of America seeks to make money by shipping jobs overseas. And, reducing the wages of the lower 99%. This in turns lowers the buying power (read that, DEMAND) of America as a whole, and ultimately causes the economy to become unstable, and collapse. Afterall, you can't plunge 15% of Americans who make minimum wage into poverty, and expect there to be no consequences. Those 15% are a sizable chunk of the 99%, and perform the majority of the basic labor in America.

[-] 1 points by jadee (40) 8 years ago

Can you tell me who the 1% is specifically? I mean there's only a hand full of them, the whole lot of them behave the same way, and they're all evil. Just writing a list might help me understand what you are talking about.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

All CEO's and stock holders that belong to every major big American corporation that once was and the ones still in the U.S. Congressman, Senate, President, National Reserve bank tycoons, wallstreet top dogs, Oil companies, and many more to add.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

Laws should be created on what is reasonable for a CEO to get in a salary. This reduces CEO's political influence on politicians since they would not get paid enough to bother with changing or amending laws to work in their favor.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Doesn't that also create inflation, which devalues the dollar, which devalues work?

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Not if the increase in wages is subsidized by the government. As for inflation, we can just tax that too. Either by a direct tax on businesses which raise prices, or by simply making the min wage/living wage adjusted for inflation.

Big Oil gets subsidized. Corporations get subsidized. So why shouldn't we?

Best part, is we'll pay for it by raising taxes on the wealthiest 1%, by raising their taxes to 50%, which is where Ronald Regan had them.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Right. But if government subsidizes the wages, then government either borrows or taxes. If it borrows, then everyone is taxed due to inflation. If we tax the 1% then they will cut jobs and raise prices. Becausevthat have such wealth, their decisions will impact the whole economy? Where is my reasoning off? Couldntvwevqceive tevsameveffect if government made intrest free loans to main street business so that way they could stimulate the economy by hiring? Or is this what you are in essence saying and I just missed the point?

[-] 1 points by Adversus (83) 8 years ago

Why would the 1% cut jobs due to an increase in their taxes?

If you where a director of a multinational company why would it make sense to fire your employees if your tax contribution went up.

Likewise, why would it make sense if you where an investor to stop investing. A waitress doesn't stop doing her job just because taxes go up or down.

How are they linked?

I'm pretty sure Warren Buffet made these points.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Maybe cut jobs is the wrong way to phrase it. What I mean is those taxes are occured as a cost to the consumer (i.e. the worker). For the corporation to continue to make a profit, which is in their share holders' best interest (dictated by law, thanks to Teddy), they have to stagnate wages. Because they have stagnated the wages, but raised prices, their is less demand. If demand decreases then prices should decrease. But, because of profit-for-the-shareholder incentives, prices tend to be sticky and take longer to fall. So, to keep prices 'stabe' corporations are forced to make cuts. Because most cost are fixed, labor is one of the easiest to manage - thatand resurce allocation cost (basically managing an inventory). So, with the help of technological investment, corporations expect more from their workers, and because their cost of living is higher, for less. This is how corporations use taxes as a way to convince them not to be taxed. Because they don't pay it. We do.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

Corporations should be taxed heavily for moving overseas. The government needs to pay back what they borrowed from our social security and medicare and get the money from the big corporations that funded them to get what they wanted. I will be dammed if I want higher taxes when the government has been clearly irresponsible with our money.

[-] 1 points by Adversus (83) 8 years ago

"best interest" could mean many things.

Is it in their best interest to cut jobs or stagnate wages to temporary boost profits but eventually will make the company uncompetitive due to the loss of good employees to companies that pay well or a decrease in the service they provide to their customers (due to lack of staff)?

They don't have to stagnate wages to boost profits anyway, Apple hasn't increased it's profits by stagnating wages or cutting jobs.

Stagnating wages or cutting jobs to boost profits is what CEOs do to make a BIG bonus, it's false profits as it's at the expense of growth rather than because of it. It's allowed by investors as short term market gains is all they care about because once the cuts start to bite they sell and buy another stock. Actually THAT's exactly what the whole Occuppy movement is against. That one explanation explains 90% of our current problems. This is why the Robbin Hood banking tax would be so good, as it would de-incentise short term buying and selling.

Obviously it totally depends on the sector but I think even in retail or manufacturing no CEO would come out and say that the skill of their employees doens't matter.

btw - This is all off topic, I'm talking about personal income tax rather than corporation tax. To be honest I didn't really understand your point, e.g.

you said "What I mean is those taxes are occured as a cost to the consumer (i.e. the worker"

Why does taxing someone in the 1% have any cost to the consumer or worker?

Then you went on explain why wages have to stagnate to increase profits when an alternative is to grow. Why was that relevent?

As far as I can see it's simple, tax the 1% more, tax the 99% less and this would increase consumer demand bringing about growth. I would also lower corporation tax to make it easier for companies to grow and hire more people again fueling growth.

It's not rocket science.

I'm not talking about any overall tax or public spending increases to do this either so conservatives shouldn't have a problem with it.

The reason why this isn't done is because Republicans look after the 1% and the Democrats look after the public sector workers and the companies that live off grants and public sector contracts. No one is looking out for the middle classes.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

If you tax the one percent, it does not matter, they transfer that tax back to the public in the form of prices, and stagnation of wages. They use other work force markets (foreign nations) as competitors to reduce wages.

You are right. Business that looks at the long term, not short term gains, have the right approach. The problem is most middle managers and many CEOs are incentivized by short term results, and in such competitive markets do not stay in their jobs for long term because of upward mobility, thus not caring about the long term consequences, leaving the mess for the next guy, their future competitor.

These factors result in increased taxation on the one percent having a different result than the one intended. They allow labor markets to compete so that they can get the cheapest cost for labor, because of taxes they transfer back to the consumer, and the consumers' increased demand for lower priced goods, more and more goods are produced outside our communities and transported back in for consumption.

In the long term, you are right. This strategy will eventually rob the US of its purchasing power, and shift consumption to China and India. As their labor gets more expensive due to increased consumption of goods, our labor market will be able to compete again.

If the US continues to allow corporations to be the major creator of jobs in this country, this trend will continue. If communities can become more localized, produce their own goods for consumption, rather than rely on global corporations, then we can create jobs and raise our productivity again.

That is why taxing the rich is a mute point. It is in the interest of the powers that be to push this agenda and co-opt the OWM to this media perceived solution. For one, it divides the people based off the fake left/right paradigm, and it gives politicians a solution that has no real affect on those that fund them, but eases the public's sense of fairness. Then the new tax laws are used to push local business out, seize more private property, and trickle all this wealth back up to the corporations, making us all more dependent on their global governance.

[-] 1 points by Adversus (83) 8 years ago

I posted pretty much everything you said in another topic regarding CEO incentivation but you are assuming that the CEOs are paying their employs es because 1% have enough. :-) Do you really think that is true?

It's supply and demand. They are paying as little as they can get away hence offshoring and supporting mass immigration.

If they as individuals are taxed more it won't make a difference to what they pay their employees or how much they invest. Both are myths spread by the media puppets.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Your reasoning is off quite a bit. After all, taxes used to be much higher on the top 1% than they are now. Ronald Regan had taxes at 50%. Nixon had them at 70%, and Eisenhower had them at a little over 90%. The fact is, is that the top 1% keep lobbying politicians for lower and lower taxes. And Herman Cain is a good example, that the trend will never end unless we end it ourselves.

And if they do chose to take the low road with increasing the costs of living,then we tax inflation too. It's a win win or lose lose situation for the top 1%.

Either they lower their bottom line, and agree to be just a little less rich, or they face unending class warfare from people who are tired of working full time, yet only earning enough to be poor.

[-] 1 points by jadee (40) 8 years ago

I'm not into warfare of any kind. It's also hard to say what life was like under Eisenhower or Nixon, better or worse, being as I wasn't alive.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Go read a history book. Probably a new concept for you, right? To try learning something that Faux News didn't "teach" you?

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Thanks for walking me through this. I am really trying to understand the argument. How do you tax inflation? Isn't inflation just an invisible tax?

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

I think "taxing inflation" means combating inflation by collecting a tax. Any type of tax would work, income tax, business tax, capital gains tax, property tax, estate tax, any tax. The taxes take money out of circulation which leads to deflation or at least reduces inflation.

Inflation is a hidden tax but it is not a flat or progressive tax, or an income or wealth tax. It is more like a sales tax. It is collected whenever something is purchased.

Inflation is theoretically caused by excessive government spending. When the government spends it is putting money into the economy. The excess money goes to buy the same things so as a natural consequence the prices rise.

Government spending itself is like a tax also. It diminishes the relative value of savings. For example, assume the 1% has 20% of the nation's money. Then the government issues new money that effectively doubles the total money in circulation. Now the 1% would have only 10% of the nations money. In this way inflation is like a wealth tax.

Since the 1% buy really expensive stuff and have a whole lot of money in the bank, they REALLY oppose government spending.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

I don't think the money is removed from existence. The money is the debt holders. They spend it, and it ends up in circulation. That is how inflation occurs. We borrow, creating more money from nothing (really we are borrowing from future work, which is why work is worth less and less, because we are borrowing against it) and adding this to the money supply. More dollars, means less scarcity, means less value. If money was being taken out of circulation we would not see inflation because the dollar would be stable. But if the dollar is stable, there is no provitamins in currency exchange. (which, interesting, was banned after the first stock market crash, and began being legal again in the 70's, I believe due to the oil embargo).

But I have not looked into how oil affects the dollar, and I think you are right. That really we need to look at oil as the reserve currency in some aspects, and because the dollar is the leading consumer of oil is exactly why, for the moment, it is the world's reserve currency. I am really interested in reading your understanding of how this process moved on from Reaganonomics and into the modern era.

Thank you for being so helpful.

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

Check out this link,

http://mosler2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/7deadly.pdf

It is written by an economist who has advised industry and governments. It lays out some basic principles of economics and how they are misrepresented. The rules for macroeconomics is very different than the rule for microeconomics. Most people's have a basic understanding of microeconomics. When they consider macroeconomics from the same perspective it is very easy to draw completely wrong conclusions.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Ok... I think I am with you.... Can you continue with your understanding up to the present day?

Two quick questions: is the government in fact destroying money it collects in taxes? Or is all that money going to pay our debt and we just borrow what we need today promising to pay tomorrow? (which we would both agree causes inflation)

On the raising prices issue.... Supply must balance with demand. Higher prices means lower demand. In a free economy that works. What think happens today is that too many of our resources have been monopolized and prices are 'fixed'. And sometimes it is more profitable to sell a few items at a higher cost than many items at a lower cost. For example: it may cost me a dollar to produce a widget. I sell that widget for two dollars and ten people buy it. That leaves me twenty dollars minus the time to make the widget. Now, let's say I charge five dollars and five people buy my widget. That leaves me twenty five dollars plus the time I saved only producing five. That would be maximizing my profitability. Competition is what is suppose to keep this tactic in check. Do you think today we see that type of competition?

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

On the first question, yes. When tax is collected, they use it to pay off the debt. The money is removed from existence and the debt is reduced. As I understand it, the debt is sort of a measure of how much money has been issued. You may have heard that if the debt was entirely paid off there would be no money left in circulation. This fact means that there will always be a debt.

As for the second question, I agree that these days the laws of supply and demand and the self regulation that comes from competition are endangered. I think the largest reason for this comes from us being so entirely dependent on oil. The price of oil is very unpredictable. Spikes in oil prices carry over to all levels of commerce. Until we develop a reliable and predictable energy source, I think business decisions based on market forces and competition will take a back seat to decisions made in response to rising oil prices or the fear of future rising oil prices.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Mmm... I don't think that is right... If the government puts new money into circulation it devalues everyone's money. For example, if ten dollars are in circulation and I put out ten more dollars, I have effectively devalued the existing dollars by fifty percent. Because there are more dollars in circulation, there is less demand. This results in prices going up to represent the decreasing value of the dollar. That's how government debt increases inflation. I don't see how you tax inflation when inflation is really a tax itself.

And inflation is not a bad thing, unless wages are stagnate. For example, if my wages don't increase at the rate that the government is borrowing, thus rampingbup the money supply, then my earnings purchase less than they did in the past. That means I have seen a decrease in my wages due to its purchasing power. For a business, wages must stagnate in an inflated economy if they are to seevan increase in profit. If you tax businesses, they attach that tax to the price of their goods and services, thus raising prices, and keeping wages stagnate. This hasvthe same affect as printing more money.

The solution has to be more in limiting business profits, how much they are required to invest back into their business, and some form of price controls. However, regulations are dangerous because typically they give global corporatiosva hugecadvantage over mom and popshops, and price controlsare unstable, especially when dealing with commodities that are volatile due to environmental conditions.

Credit, taxes, and printing of money all lead to price increases. This leads to inflation. If wages don't keep up with inflation, then a huge wealth gap is created. Taxing inflation makes no sense because they are basically the same thing.

[-] 2 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

Here are some concepts as I understand them.

All government spending involves the creation of new money. The money they spend comes from selling treasury notes. The treasury note did not exist prior to the transaction but now it does. It is new money. The risk of new money is that if there is not a corresponding increase in commerce, there is inflation.

Taxes are not used to fund government spending. Money collected as taxes goes to the fed and is destroyed of is otherwise wiped off the books. (Also, the amount is deducted from the federal debt).

In times when increased spending does not lead to an expansion of commerce, one of the tools the government has to limit inflation is to raise taxes. By destroying money you do the opposite of what creating money does. This should be done quite progressively. When there is little growth in commerce, government spending typically goes to the top.

You may argue that tax increases cause companies to raise prices, but that would cost them business. Usually, if there is still a profit margin, there will be a company that does not raise prices and then gets a larger market share. The problem is when the increased taxes occur with increases in the prices of materials or fuel making the profit margin so small that prices have to go up.

This was going on in the 1970's when the oil shock happened. What made it bad was the reaction to it. Taxes were high but had been for decades with a lot of growth and little inflation. When oil ran short, a drop in commerce happened. The policy adapted was to stimulate demand with spending. This led to inflation without an increase in commerce. The increase in commerce was expected of course and its absence was hard to understand. The problem was that there could be no increase in commerce since all commerce was so dependent on oil. The inability to understand this led to the effective abandonment of Keynesian economics and the rise of Reaganomics.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

And btw, I would say that inflation is a result of big business deciding that accepting 2-3% less in profits is outrageous and unreasonable. So they raise their prices. After all, why raise prices at all when you're already a multi-billion dollar business? You can chalk it up to competition if you want, but there's comes a time when enough is enough. After all, they obviously have enough money to bombard us with crappy Ads and lobby our politicians enough to mutiny them against us.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

So, if we raise wages, but fix prices, then this will inrease demand? Stimulating growth... The exact opposite ofvwhat IMF and the WTO recommend, but has been shown to work in countries like Bolivia, Peru, and Venezuela?

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

It's really not so much about fixing prices, as taxing increases in inflation over the national average. I'm not real sure what would be the best way to handle the issue, since I don't have a degree in economics. Though I think subsidizing the increase in wages would be the best way to handle it. And it would probably be paid for by taxing the 1% a little more.

Peru and Bolivia both have a GDP per capita that's actually a little higher than China. So that's interesting. But I think it just goes to show, that poor countries remain relatively poor regardless of fiscal policy. Although it seems like they have improved considerably.

Fixing prices isn't the issue, so much as increasing the buying poor of the lowest earners in America (full-time workers). For instance, it's not the top 1% of Americans who go to Best Buy and buy that brand new plasma screen tv off the wall. It's the everyday Americans who do that. And studies show that middle-class workers are much more willing to spend if they have a small increase over current wages, and this has been shown to significantly increase demand. Especially for the tech sector.

The real problem, is that manufacturing jobs have mostly gone over seas. Despite the fact that taxes on the top 1% have decreased by almost 60% over the past 50 years. It's a bizarre trend with corporations which is a telling tale.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

So is decreasing the buying power of 15 to 20% of America by paying them as little as possible. After all, we've experienced staggering inflation all the while lowering taxes on the top 1% over the past 50 years. Sadly, logic is against you in this instance. Regan had taxes on the 1% set at 50%. Nixon had them at 70%. Eisenhower had them at a little over 90%.

Fighting for corporate greed is a suicide dive into recession. But there's a hand full of Americans, such as yourself, who insist we do it. Who demand it, even! lol. It's like we're in a race to the bottom of the barrel, and we desperately are trying to catch up to who? CHINA? lol. Get a clue.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

It is on this forum.... I am using an iPad... Not quite sure how to link tobthis forum...

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

I agree. Check out my post on Direct Democracy via the Internet.... I really think dissolving Congress and making the people the Congree might be a viable alternative today... I am interested in your ideas... (after you read the post, of course :) )

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Direct Democracy? directdemocracy.com? Link please.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Please don't make assumptions about me. I am against corporations in the sense that I see them is a monopolistic centralized business cartels that devalue labor, create scarcity for profit, and buy our government. I am reallybtrying to understand your argument better so I can deliver your message better. The questions I asked you are typically the questions I get. So, and I mean this is the nicest way, but fuck your get a clue comment. :P :)

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Understandable. But of course, we aren't legislators. It's not our job to dictate fiscal policies in America. That's the job of Congress. It's their job to take our demands, and find ways (i.e, compromises) to turn them into reasonable legislative policies.

Unfortunately, due to corporate lobbying, that is no longer realistic. Now, despite the fact that 60 to 70% of Americans think we need to raise taxes on the top 1%, the conservatives in congress won't agree to it, despite the fact that a super-majority of Americans support the concept.

Furthermore, the two party system has become little more than two sides of the same coin. It's a complete sham.

And finally, I'm quite sure you could formulate your own argument supporting these same issues, rather than goading me into doing it for you.

[-] -2 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

He's high, save your keystrokes. Raise taxes on businesses that raise prices. That's his policy for inflation. Raise the wealthy tax bracket to 50% to pay for it. Even more brilliant. I think his detailed plan calls for a unicorn for every young girl too.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Who u?

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

What is your idea?

[-] 1 points by Edgewaters (912) 8 years ago

Probably drop all taxes, no rules or regulation at all, and the magical invisible hand will fix everything all by itself. Alice in Wonderland stuff.

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

I agree that outsourcing it a major problem. It creates a race to the bottom. However, I think a lot can be done to fix this by rewriting trade agreements to ensure companies must obey international environmental and labor standards. There should be an international organization that can enforce these rules.

Another mechanism that creates incentive for employing Americans is indexing the progressive tax bracket rates to the average pay of US workers. Thus the higher the average pay, the higher the bracket cutoffs are. The 1% then have an incentive to create jobs in the US. It raises the average pay, and consequently they owe less in taxes.

Just some ideas.

[-] 0 points by miller (40) from Bronx, NY 8 years ago

Actually, the effect of "shipping jobs overseas" has been more nuanced than that. For the workers and their families who have directly lost their jobs to the shift it has been an unmitigated disaster and demand from them has been lowered. However an at least equally large demand increase is spread diffusely among the remainder of the population in the form of lower prices ($100 TVs anyone?). The macroeconomics of the decision is actually quite sound, but the human cost (to "our" people) is quite possibly a too undesirable tradeoff.

Of course, as we saw with manufacturing firms in the 70s (TVs again?), the alternative to not shipping the jobs overseas is to have the jobs disappear anyway, with the only difference being the overseas jobs are not controlled by U.S. corporations.

Whether the 1% want to take part in the shipping of jobs overseas, jobs will move. I don't begrudge the 1% following global labor flows, I DO take an issue with the 1% not helping to invest more in the jobs that can stay here and the new kinds of jobs that can be created here. Also, government policy should not make moving jobs overseas an even more compelling choice than basic economics dictates.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

But you miss the point completely. they ship the jobs overseas to cut their bottom line. then they turn around, and sell their products to us at the same price as before. Meanwhile, we still don't have the jobs they sent overseas, AND they are undercutting other companies who try and keep their jobs in the US!

Capitalism is a total failure. Socialism is not the answer, but a combination of the two IS.

[-] -2 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

The 99% caused this problem. You shop at Walmart, you buy Apple products for significantly more than PC's. You buy premium priced clothes from Abercrobie, you buy Nikes, you endorse labor unions paying 2.5 times minimum wage for low skill labor. You endorse ecommerce, and the direct model, eliminating entire distribution supply chains. You buy all this crap from China, and scour for the best price to get it. Then you complain when the jobs dry up because we get everything from Asia.

What amazes me most is when the unions give away Walmart gift cards as Christmas gifts. And for clarity, minimum wage workers provide mainly food work. Manufacturing hasn't been done for min wage in the US for 20 years.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Mr. Yuck, ever hear the word Generalization.

I suggest you look it up. It will help you with your problem.

Just a thought.

[-] -2 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

Truth hurts puzzlin. The quarterly reports don't lie. The 1% don't shop at Walmart.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You are a Troll.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 8 years ago

I dont know what unions your talking about,Cause mine has been boycotting walmart for as long as I can remeber(about 15 years i think), simply because wal mart treats its employees like shit.

[-] -1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

I've seen it at UAW, and ibew.

[-] 1 points by JDub (218) 8 years ago

Well, we at SEIU have always had an issue with working conditions at Wal mart and the efforts made by Wal Mart to prevent unionization to improve those conditions.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

True. Which is essentially why conservatives fail to explain how lowering wages and cutting jobs would benefit the U.S economy. And manufacturing hasn't been done for min wage, because all the manufacturing jobs were sent overseas. Good job pointing out all the weak points in your argument

And btw, min wage to me is anything less than 12-13 an hour, even though technically that's well above min wage (almost double).

[-] 0 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

Manufacturing work is done in LCC's for about 5$ an hour fully burdened. In the US the shop rate runs about 27$/hour low tech, and as high as 45$/hour high skill assembly. Considering the average product sold here has at least an hour of labor into it. On that same token, building a widget in China has other costs associated with it. There are shipping charges (slow boat from China), 5$/unit, 6 week supply chain vs 2 (basically 4 weeks of full production is floated on the slow boat) 7$/unit assuming it's a 100$ widget (7% interest for 30 days, corps don't get rates like mortgages). I'll spare you the rest of the supply chain, distribution, spare parts, planning, warranty, etc. In a nutshell, at a $45 shop rate at one hour labor, an iPhone would cost $28 more per unit to manufacture here. As a rule of thumb everybody in supply chain looks for 90-100% gm (gross margin). So that 28$ becomes $52 by the time it hits the consumer. Just counting cogs (cost of goods sold), if apple sold 40m units a year it would have cost them an additional Billion dollars to ship the widgets. Everyone besides Apple prices their product via market. Supply and demand is one awesome cornerstone of capitalism. But if you are motorola, facing the fixed price point in market, that extra billion is the difference between profit and loss on the product. So if we closed the gap on labor (the largest cogs component) corporations would gladly build things on US soil. They simply cannot, and hit a price point the consumer will support. Witness the union negotiations at UAW in last month. As soon as the big Detroit firms posted a profit the unions wanted more pay. You simply cannot convince consumers to pay a premium for US built goods. Manufacturing is gone in this country as consumers vote with their dollars, and overwhelmingly they vote for Chinese labor.

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

You know what's also pretty "awesome" about Capitalism..It has no allegiances..So if you let Capitalism run amok don't expect to have much of a country left. I guess we could compete with China if we allowed sweat shops and child labor back in this country...I didn't and would not have voted for the Free Trade Agreements that made Chinese labor so accessible...My scumbag politician did that...Now I don't have a choice but to by some cheap shit from China that breaks after you use it once.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Higher wages could be subsidized by the government. After all, they already subsidize big oil.But Conservatives scream "SOCIALISM" any time we mention anything like this. Pretty silly, really.

The truth is, is that we will never agree with you, because we know better. When Wal-Mart makes 11 billion dollars in profit in 2008, and that's after giving 19 billion dollars to share holders as dividends, your argument begins looking pretty flimsy. An economics textbook makes your post seem pretty chill, right up until the fact check.

The truth is, that we have a form of slavery in this country. And there is no justification for it with the U.S being as wealthy as it is.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

If you raise the wages, won't companies raise prices to compensate, thus we are back to square one? Isn't profit dependent on wage stagnation so that it bets out inflation?

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Not if the wage increase is subsidized by the government. After all, why should big oil get subsidized, but not wages for 15% of American workers? And if taxes on the top 1% were raised to 50%, which is where Regan had them, then you could pay for this increase two to three times over.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, we need the tax rates to back in line where they were before we started getting fed these mythologies of those rich job creators.

The experiment failed and what it did do was make the rich richer is all.

[-] -1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

Wtf are you smoking? Your numbers are mixed up, and the float is sub 750m shares. Your measurements would indicate a dividend of 20$ a share jackass. At today's p/e, it would be trading at $240 share. Check your own facts clown. In 08' wmt paid .88 dividend. On 13b earnings. And the government cannot subsidize manufacturing, isn't that the same as a bailout you guys are all bitter about?

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Actually we already subsidize manufacturing. What we don't subsidize is decent wages for 15% to 20% of Americans.

[-] -1 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

Supply and demand works with workers, just like any other commodity. When there are more jobs than people, wages go up. When it's the inverse, as it is today wages go down. This will never change.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

In a globalized world this country is doomed.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

lol. There's plenty of jobs. They are just all overseas. Our tax cuts at work!

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

No, you just don't know what you're talking about.

The fact is, is that I included share buy backs in the dividends. You can disagree with that if you want, but my numbers are solid and quite factual. Though I did name the wrong year. 2010 is the year for the 19 billion in dividends and buybacks. Amusingly, it didn't help share holders at all. And just goes to show what is wrong with corporate greed.

Buybacks:

2007: $7,691 million 2008: $3,521 million 2009: $7,276 million 2010: $14,776 million

Dividends:

2007: $3,586 million 2008: $3,746 million 2009: $4,217 million 2010: $4,437 million

Totals:

2007: $11,277 million 2008: $7,267 million 2009: $11,493 million 2010: $19,213 million

Are Dividend Investors Benefiting from Stock Buybacks?

Corporations typically return cash to shareholders in two ways – through share buybacks or in the form of dividends. In a previous article I compared and contrasted both methods of returning cash to shareholders.

My analysis of Chubb (CB) spurred a lively discussion among readers, some of which use Net Payout Yield. The net payout yield represents the total amount of cash paid for dividends and spent on share buybacks, divided by the market value of the company. Some investors believe that this should be taken in consideration, whenever someone analyses a stock.

Rather than take these readers words for it, I decided to crunch some numbers. I noted that Chubb (CB) has spent the following amounts for share repurchases over the past 4 years: ( in millions of $)

The most interesting part in this exercise is that the highest price for Chubb stock was $66 reached in 2011. Before that, the highest price was in 2008 at $65. What the company is not showing is that it is repurchasing shares, yet it is also issuing shares most probably to executives who have chosen to exercise their stock options at ridiculously low prices.

The company has spent $1.88 billion on dividends over the past 4 years. However, it has spent $6.24 billion on share repurchases. It spent 3.30 times more on buybacks than on dividends.

An investor with 4.23 million shares in 2006 would have owned 1% of the entity, whereas now they would own 1.30% because of the anti0dillutive effect of share repurchases. However the stock ended 2006 at $53. Had all the cash been paid out as dividends, the investor would have received $19 in dividends/share over a 4 year period (for a 36% return). ( I get to $19 by adding up 1,881 billion spent for dividends and the 6,237 billion spent for buybacks and assuming the number of shares stayed constant, and then dividing by 423 million shares).

Instead, the investor received $5.36 in dividends in total for 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. The stock closed 2010 at $60. So the total return was 23%.

I also analyzed three of the largest dividend paying stocks, which repurchased massive amounts of stock over the past several years. The companies include Wal-Mart (WMT), Exxon-Mobil (XOM) and IBM (IBM).

ExxonMobil (XOM) shareholders would have received $21.61/share between 2007 – 2010 has all the cashflow been returned in the form of dividends (for a 28.20% return). Instead, shareholders received a paltry $6.32/share over the 2007-2010 period. The stock closed 2006 at 76.63and traded at 11.60 times earnings. The stock closed 2010 at 73.12 and traded at 11.80 times earnings. The amounts paid per each repurchased share appear reasonable. The increase in share count in 2010 was prompted by the acquisition of XTO energy. Check my analysis of XOM.

Wal-Mart Stores (WMT) shareholders would have received $11.82/share between 2007 – 2010 has all the cashflow been returned in the form of dividends (for a 25.30% return). Instead, shareholders received a paltry $4.13/share over the 2007-2010 period. The stock closed 2006 at 46.18 and traded at 17.40 times earnings. The stock closed 2010 at 53.93 and traded at 12.90 times earnings. When looking at the amount paid per share over the past 4 years, investors should remember that the stock price never went above $63 during our study period. While the share buybacks might not have been beneficial to ordinary WalMart (WMT) shareholders, they have been helpful for the Walton family. The Walton family stake in Wal-Mart has increased to above 50%, mainly due to the fact that the family is holding on to their stock, while the company is using shareholder’s cash to repurchase stock held by others.

[-] -2 points by YuckFouHippies (189) 8 years ago

You really don't know much about this subject kid. Aside from having th wrong year, which would have propped my math even more because I used today's float in calculation (I don't trade Walmart), buybacks have always been for long term benefits, not to help retail investors in near term. Hence the author of that story was contrasting would be scenarios of dividend payout vs buyback. Buybacks are utilized when the market has priced a security under where the shareholders find it's intrinsic value. Hence they must be approved by shareholders! A company sitting on boatloads of cash (not earning anything with current interest rates) buys the stock back in open markets at fmv, it then adds these shares to the authorized pool internally held. This raises the price directly in relation to the reduction in float. At such point when p/e goes back to 20 (ie: growth again) they will then sell these back into the markets at the new higher multiple, thereby creating additional cash on balance sheet.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

Sounds like you're the one who doesn't know much about the subject. And the article clearly pointed out that the buybacks didn't help shareholders at all, really. lol. Way to totally miss the entire point of that article. I think it explains the 1% vs the 99% mentality, since those buy backs only helped the Walton family out, really.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Right, because you won't make any money. Thanks for being so reasonable and for understanding economics.

[-] 1 points by Truthseeker99 (99) 8 years ago

Amen! Truth at last.

[-] -1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Evidently you don't run your business very well.

Assuming you get the tax break, you now have lower overall costs and can translate that to the consumer by lowering your margins, while still maintaining (or increasing) your bottom line. This shifts the supply curve and more is demanded at the new price. Now you may need to hire new workers to increase your capacity.

Alternatively, you can use the additional profits to invest in developing new services/products to offer consumers. Seems to work fairly ok for Apple and their products.

[-] 2 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

We can't expect all businesses to behave altruistically. Some are in it for the ruthless pursuit of profits others just want to make a great product but most probably fall somewhere in between.

[-] 0 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

I don't even know where to start with your post. You assume to much... BTW wouldn't a good economist at least know what type of business i have before coming up with a business model that was taken directly from a high school text book ?

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Yes because, for some businesses, Profits do not equal Revenue - Costs.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

OK, How does this apply to my business that i obviously don't run well and you still don't know what it is ?

[-] 2 points by zz1968 (89) 8 years ago

LOL, maybe you should decide to sell logic. Obviously you got plenty and some people here could use a bit extra

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Because business fundamentals apply to all businesses. Otherwise, they wouldn't be fundamentals. A business model is something else.

Are you really saying to me that lower business costs or more capital on hand lessens a firm's propensity to create additional jobs?

If you want me to apply these fundamental principals to your business, you will have to pay me. That is my business model.

[-] 2 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

Job creation is an option not a necessity, we have seen a lot of firing in the name of keeping the stock price high in the past couple of years.

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Yes, it is an option. But in a competitive marketplace with established rules, firms with rational managers will be incentivized to create value. It takes one firm within an industry to make a move before the others must follow to stay competitive.

With regards to keeping the stock price high, yes, considering that executive management ultimately answers to the owners (shareholders) their primary function is to increase the firm's - long term - value. But please keep in mind a few things. What determines a firm's stock price? Essentially, it's society. More specifically, individuals within a society choose what goods and services they wish to purchase and consume. On an aggregate basis, these individuals and their habits drive the valuation of individual companies and the economy in general. The better a firm is at providing value (a product or service for a cost) to society, the more that firm is valued on the markets. Depending of a number of variables, sometimes the value offering can be made through new products/services and sometimes it must be made by lowering the cost.

Furthermore, anyone can take part in this growth and become an owner.

[-] 2 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

"Are you really saying to me that lower business costs or more capital on hand lessens a firm's propensity to create additional jobs?"

No but it doesn't always increase their tendency to create a job either. In fact, in my case it doesn't at all. It's the opposite. I own a snow removal company that operates inside of a much MUCH larger snow removal company. I am basically handed contracts and it's my job to figure out how to put the least amount of employees and equipment on that job site. All my employees are sub contractors, all my equipment is leased for the duration of the contract. All my operating costs and taxes are diverted to the employees/subcontractors or absorbed in the contract.

The only thing lowering taxes would do for me is make me a larger profit.

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Lowering business taxes (increasing business capital) always increases the tendency to create jobs. The correct argument would be whether the jobs are created in the US or abroad, but that's another story that can be incentivised through targeted tax breaks. You may decide to take the tax reduction in profit - which is a short term benefit to you and an opportunity cost otherwise - but it will eventually be spent somewhere and find its way to someone who decides to invest it into something. People (generally speaking) do not keep cash in a vault or under their mattress.

With regards to you taking the profit rather than investing, a sophisticated business takes many variables into account on whether to distribute profits to owners or to reinvest in itself. Nevertheless the predominant analysis is to determine what type of activity would yield the highest expected cash flows and whether the net present value of these cash flows are higher than the general cost of capital - in this case borrowing from creditors. Typically, a short term re-investment can yield long term cash flows. However, a business cannot make accurate predictions on anything when the rules that they must apply to are constantly being threatened to change.

Anyways, some basic thoughts on your business.

As I said before:

Assuming you get the tax break, you now have lower overall costs and can translate that to the consumer by lowering your margins, while still maintaining (or increasing) your bottom line. This shifts the supply curve and more is demanded at the new price. Now you may need to hire new workers to increase your capacity.

  1. Since you now have higher net margins, you can lower your prices and compete to gain additional contracts. Assuming you earn those contracts, you will need additional capacity. I'm sure there are potential clients out there who do not currently have a contract with anyone but would be willing to enter a transaction should prices be lower.
  2. Perhaps you can hire another firm or someone in-house to help market your services in the effort to retain more contracts.
  3. Perhaps you can lease new equipment that is costlier but more efficient which would lower your long term operating costs further.

As I said before:

Alternatively, you can use the additional profits to invest in developing new services/products to offer consumers. Seems to work fairly ok for Apple and their products.

  1. Perhaps you can utilize your knowledge and business model/structure to offer some summer time services such as landscaping. This would obviously create jobs.
  2. Perhaps you determine that it would be beneficial to buy snow removal equipment rather than rent it. This may require you to higher someone to help maintain the equipment.
  3. Perhaps you can spend the capital to higher people to offer additional snow removal services such as snow removal from driveways, stairs, roofs, etc.

Or you can do any combination of the above, plus a million other things.

The bottom line is more capital drives investment, which yield jobs. If this was not the case, the government would not be seeking to retain that capital for the same reason. The real question should be whether government or private business is better at investing surplus capital.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

How about instituting a living wage adjusted for inflation, instead? That would increase the buying power of roughly the 15 to 20% of Americans who make at or near minimum wage.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Time to put these ideas back where they need to be.

[-] 1 points by PragmaticEconomist (39) from New York, NY 8 years ago

That increase would just increase the cost of business for firms who would be forced to increase prices which would be pass everything onto the consumer.

This would ultimately result in a lot of work for no real gains.

V Yes, because when the government gives subsidies, the money is free and not from the tax base.

Certain players within certain aspects of the oil industry may get subsidies. But Exxon Mobil paid 20,000MM in taxes in 2010 alone. In 2008, they paid 37,000MM. And, actually, I should say US consumers paid it for them.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

No it wouldn't. Not if the government subsidized the increase. And why not? They subsidize big oil. LOLZ@YOU!

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

As another small business owner, I have to agree with tr289. We don' t so much need tax breaks or loans, we need customers. If the US employment level is high and real wages are not in decline, that's where US customers come from. What does not help is to give tax breaks to companies that send their jobs to Asia or low wage nations That does not create consumer spending in the US. It is that trend imo ,and the refusal of the last 4 (at least) presidents and the Congress to recognize this fact and take the appropriate action to protect the US economy that is the single greatest cause of the decline in our economy for the last 30 years.

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

I have to agree with this.

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

(( " Assuming you get the tax break, you now have lower overall costs and can translate that to the consumer by lowering your margins, while still maintaining (or increasing) your bottom line. This shifts the supply curve and more is demanded at the new price. Now you may need to hire new workers to increase your capacity." ))

I do not set prices i merely accept or deny the contract offered. In my industry prices are pretty standard and are barely over the break even point... This is a whole other can of worms that needs not to be opened. I will say this, Illegal immigrants / workers are common place and drive prices down.

(("Alternatively, you can use the additional profits to invest in developing new services/products to offer consumers. Seems to work fairly ok for Apple and their products." ))

I actually do landscaping as well but it's something i am not very fond of. I mainly do it to keep some employees around and working year round. It's hard to make a profit in the Landscaping business for the same reasons i mentioned before.

((" 2. Perhaps you determine that it would be beneficial to buy snow removal equipment rather than rent it. This may require you to higher someone to help maintain the equipment." ))

The cost of buying equipment vs leasing vs renting is something we bicker about all the time in this industry. My opinion, it's easier and less expensive to lease new equipment as needed. The initial costs to purchase and maintain some of the equipment used ... It's why most fail in the Snow removal business.

(("3. Perhaps you can spend the capital to higher people to offer additional snow removal services such as snow removal from driveways, stairs, roofs, etc." ))

I only do medium - large scale commercial accounts. The smaller accounts and driveways are usually handled by the small landscaping companies underbidding each other out of business.

Anyway, i agree with every thing you said. How ever there are a lot of people like me, 1000's in my industry, that are just simple small businesses that don't care to turn into a mega corporation. For me and my business it's easy. If i want to grow i just accept more contracts from the company i work with. If i want to downsize i accept less.

(side note) I'm sure it's obvious I'm not a business man. I'm a simple snow plow driver that learned a few tricks along the way that allowed me to grow into a small business and do something i love doing.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You are absolutely correct. In general, and most of the time, the statement is largely true. But some tax cuts can help create inventive for jobs. Such as "green jobs". In those cases there's tax breaks for manufacturer's who produce alternative energy products. This is where it would make sense: the government encourages products that may save us from intentionally devouring our planet.

It's usually suspect when we make blanket black and white statements, such as, the rich are always greedy. The world isn't quite that simple.

Which goes back to the premise of this thread, the Job Creator Myth.

In the aggregate, it is utterly false. Is this some glimmer of truth that the rich can actually create the jobs, I would not deny that, but a small minute part is not the whole. (Yes, I know hair splitting, but as an engineer, I have to. )

This is what gets folks confused over subjects like this. And, I will admit, this subject has to be researched by each one of us. We need to be up to speed on this one and sift through all the BS out there. But there is a truth, and you'll not find it easily, you have work your way to it. I have not come to my own conclusions by reading a few articles. Also, know your sources, and their biases.

Good Luck!

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Good points. I agree. We should all be learning constantly with open minds.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Alright. It's our greatest asset as human beings. The ability to reason.

Yes, we can affect change, but we will have to work for it.

Unlike, as some would characterize the OWS people, they are working for our best interest to fix a broken system. They have my full support.

We have an Occupy Movement here in my city. We're not going anywhere until we can get this change.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

Yes and when it comes to the government... the government can't actually create jobs unless they create government jobs or sponsor projects like building roads, schools, etc... So when the republicans try and claim "job creation," they are talking out of their asses.

Tax breaks are just tax breaks. They can't tell the people getting tax breaks to use the tax breaks to create jobs. Instead of giving billionaires and big business tax breaks... they could have used the tax dollars to actually create jobs.

And if the government really wants to create jobs, they should pass HR 2990, the NEED Act. This bill creates jobs, allows to provide REAL universal healthcare, all the while taking the power back from the banksters.

HR 2990 - http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr2990/text

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Thanks Trevor. This is such an old post, yet important one. It's good to shed light on all of this again. You are right.

[-] 1 points by itsme2 (45) 8 years ago

so you are not in agreement with continuing tax breaks as obama has proposed and even proposed today?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

I absolutely am in agreement with tax breaks for the middle class. They will create demand by going out and spending that money.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And here's the proof, as played out in reality:

GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?

UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Great post.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thanks. The evidence is piling up on this one!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

If it wasn't so sad, it would be funny. But it really is so very sad that so many people are out of work and the Congress is doing nothing about it. And, to top it off they won't extend unemployment benefits for the poor folks who are still seeking work. Pathetic.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

No doubt, we have the spot light on the repugs now, they won't support tax cuts for the middle class, but they'll bend over backwards to get those tax cuts for the rich without funding them. That light is getting very bright and hot!!!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Once the light is lit the people need to vote, so....

We should also focus on the disenfranchisement that is going on around the country. Several states are trying to suppress minority, elderly and young voters by requiring IDs and by reducing the times available for voting (ie. no Saturday voting, no early voting (things that hurt workers and the elderly and, of course, students who are out of state). They are doing this under the ruse that there has been voter fraud. But, meanwhile there has hardly been any voter fraud and the little there has been will be undone by the millions of people who will be disenfranchised.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I/m going to be working real hard on that issue. This is when I get activated and start talking to my fellow dems encouraging and helping them any way I can to get them to vote. It's truly wild how the repugs have no limit to what they'll do to win. I ready for this fight.

Thanks for your great posts. This is keeping this subject in the forefront and it should be, the repugs will be out pouring on their lies again. This helps some to finally see through their bullshit.

EXPOSURE to the LIGHT

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

I'm going to do what I can too. It is just not fair. It's so regressive. My kids saw a story on this on the news and they were like "That sounds like Jim Crow." At least they learned something about Civil Rights in school and they remembered it. It is exactly like Jim Crow and it must be stopped.

25% of African Americans do not have driver's licenses or photo IDs while only 8% of whites don't. These new laws are racist and their intent is evil.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I totally agree. The arrogant rich just figured that the poor like to be poor and are too lazy to get out and find a job. What bullshit!!! They have no compassion but most call themselves Christian. Isn't that ironic!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Puzzlin, we could go on and on. Thanks for the normal discussion!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I do appreciate it my friend. This is a powerful thread and goes a long way to dispel these myths about job creation.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Yes, great thread, Puzzlin - one of the best, over 800 comments!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, and your big contributor my friend. Great work! We are making progress. I'm glad this one is in here. To me it's a cornerstone of the OWS movement. It tells us how the rich pulled off this huge scam using the repug party as the tools to make it happen. Bought and paid for by the rich for the rich!!!

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

It is such a bloody joke isn't it? And, what about that Grover Norquist nonsense. The Republicans who supposedly made an oath to never increase taxes. Unless, of course, it's taxes on the middle class. What a bunch of morons! What about their oath to serve their constituents? No. Grover Norquist comes first. It is so unbelievable. They are a bunch of tools for the rich.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so were is the demand? how do you propose creating demand?

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so where is the demand? The 1% create the supply where is the demand from the 99% ?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

If the 1% paid the 99% a living wage there would be more demand.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

define a "living wage". or perhaps we can look to see how the unions have driven manufacturing overseas. Talk about greedy ! They priced themselves out of the market & now look at Detroit. Good going.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

How about this: A living wage could be one where a worker can work full time and not be eligible for food stamps. That would be a good place to start.

Are you aware of the statistics that 1 in 7 Americans are on food stamps (and many of these are working Americans). Average wages have decreased over the last decade by 7%. The average CEO who 30 years ago earned 40 times the average worker's wage now earns an average of 343 times the average worker's wage? So, who's greedy? Who's entitled? Do you really think the unions were wrong to want a wage for their workers that would provide the workers with enough money for clothing, shelter, food and education? What is wrong with wanting the profit of a corporation to be shared a little more with the workers? Why should the CEOs run off with all the money and be so greedy to want to pay even less for labor and run the company overseas? Do you really blame the American workers for that? Corporate greed is the reason for that.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

so you want to raise the minimum wage & eliminate food stamps so the worker can delude themselves of what their true value is. What incentive is their for this person to improve themselves to increase their income? Higher wage earners have higher skill levels. You cant expect to stay stagnant bagging groceries & expect to be comfortable. You need to get skills that are in demand. The more rare the skills the higher the pay. otherwise why would anyone do anything more than the bare minimum?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

There are not enough skilled jobs available. We have 9.1% unemployment as it is right now. That means there are not enough jobs in the economy for everyone who wants a job. So, what job would they move up to? And, why would you not want a humane wage for workers. Why judge people. Maybe someone is only capable of bagging groceries. So what? I don't think I'm better than that person. I want to live in a society where all people are valued.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

it's not a matter of one person being better than the other. It is a matter of supply & demand. There are more people that can bag groceries than can engineer an automobile. Therefore the wages of grocery baggers is low & the wages for engineers is higher. If the grocery bagger should earn a comfortable living like an engineer, why were we pushed in High school to get educated, get a trade skills etc so we can make a decent living? It seems the first 20 years of our lives are spent making sure we dont become grocery baggers.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Okay, but do you want that many people in society (all the grocery baggers, for instance) to make such a low wage that they can't afford basic necessities and often qualify for food stamps (which costs us all money, by the way). Low skilled workers certainly should not make the same pay as say, an engineer, but they should make a living wage.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

whats the difference id the worker gets the money via the "living wage" forced on an employer or they get food stamps? The money has to come from somewhere. I am not for artificially propping up wages so people can feel good about themselves. People need to get skills. It doesnt take a four year college degree to learn to type, become a secretary, medical assistant, paralegal. auto mechanic, welder, etc. If you want to get off food stamps - learn a trade.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

There are very few jobs out there at the moment. Also, society needs people in those low-skilled jobs. The thing is, even people in the jobs you talk about are not making enough to live comfortably. They are struggling. Try to find a secretary job that isn't a "temp" job. What is wrong with people being paid fair wages? Why does a working person want to argue against that?

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

because everyone's idea of fair is different. who is going to determine what is fair? Everyone id for raising taxes on anyone earning more than them. It's always the other guy that is greedy. How about a 10% tax hike across the board for everyone. that's whats fair. It's the easiest political ploy to pit one class against another. meanwhile without the rich - the working class are way worse off. who is going to build the factory that they want to work in? A working person can argue against what you are saying because I understand how it works. the jobs I mentioned I dont consider "low skill" Were I live they pay a comfortable salary. Again - what you consider "comfortable" might be different than mine. Hence - that's why the markets decide. When you consider what is comfortable you should be comparing it to what others have in envy. An auto mechanic might not be as comfortable as a CEO of a fortune 500 company, but compared to someone picking fruit, or someone in a third world country - they are living like a king! Count your blessings and dont always be envious of your neighbor whome you know nothing about.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

You sound like Marie Antoinette, "Let them eat cake!" and remember what happened to her! Look, living in a civil society requires taking care of the masses. This movement is not saying that the poor should be equally wealthy, with say, even a mechanic. This movement is just saying that there is enough wealth in this country to go around more fairly so that we don't have anyone living in poverty. I've heard that argument before about comparing America's poor to the poor in other third world countries and that argument doesn't work for me. You can't even begin to address inequality around the world if you can't address it in your own country. It's shameful. And, the people who support the OWS movement are the same people who care about the inequality in third world countries. The 1% sure don't.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

a rising tide lifts all boats.

[-] 2 points by elderberry (3) 7 years ago

but woe to those who have no boats.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

Production creates jobs. You can't have a demand for something that is not produced. What is happening now to jobs? We make it cost so much to hire someone and we have so many regulations you can't make a profit in America today worth taking the risk. So everyone is going to China to make the goods. We have become a nation of consumers with little to no production. Most jobs today are in service or retail. So you are selling something from China or your are Servicing something from China. America is the hardest place to make anything due to liberals so it is to liberals we can place the blame when millions starve in the streets in the coming years.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

The reason you create a job to produce a good is that there is a demand for your good. Therefore, demand creates jobs. You wouldn't produce a good for which there is no demand, would you?

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

If that were the case we wouldn't have cars, coke, computers, TVs, phones. You don't know what you want until someone produces it, besides food, water and shelter, you get the point. This is where most people go wrong and its not there fault really. I was a little hard on liberals my last post, which I hate to put group labels on people like that and not all who call themselves liberals are bad.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

It is a little bit like a cycle, so we could go back and forth, but in the end, if a product is created but has no demand, it will not sell, and the producer will stop producing it and will lay off his/her workers. Period. End of story. People love cars, coke, computers, TVs, phones. There is great demand for them. If someone hires employees to make a product that nobody wants (this happens all the time in start ups that fail) there is no demand, and they end up stopping production and laying off their employees.

[-] 1 points by uslynx81 (203) 8 years ago

This is correct and also why government needs to get out of business. Like solar panels, the demand isn't here yet and the cost is still to great for most people. Though we have wasted billions on this. Also you brought up another good point, if no one wants what you make then you fail, this is the free market working. IPO's today are few and far between and this is mainly due to regulations and to many taxes. Why is this? Well what we are missing in America today is savings. Savings and Under-consumption create capital, If someone needs a loan he can't get said loan unless someone first saves money to give the loan. Economics isn't complicated.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

You make a lot of good points, but I disagree about economics. I think it is very complicated. Yes, capitalists need to save in order to be able to have the capital to produce the goods that are in demand. But, how can people save to create capital if they are barely paid a living wage? Wages have been decreasing significantly for most Americans while the cost of living has been increasing.

[-] 1 points by IMSoPoor (40) 8 years ago

Innovation drives demand. Innovation costs big bucks.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

You make a good point and it shows how complicated economics really is. However, If people don't have money to buy your innovative products you won't make a profit. The demand will not be there no matter how great your thing is.

My real point with this post is that the 1% is not telling the truth when they say that they will not create jobs if their taxes are increased. They will create jobs, no matter what, if there is demand for the goods and services they provide and they can make a profit.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Jobs create demand. Demand creates jobs. So jobs create jobs?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

No. People want things like goods and services. A capitalist knows about this demand and says, gee, I can make some money if I provide that good or service. In order to produce the goods or services the capitalist needs to hire people to get the labor to help him produce the goods or services. It is demand for goods and services that creates jobs.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Where do people get the money to create demand... From credit, taxes (like well fare) or jobs, right?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

It is a cycle in a sense. If all of the 1% paid living wages to their workers there would be a lot more demand for goods. Since they don't, the gov't steps in with tax credits, welfare, etc. to help do so indirectly. By helping people survive it allows them to create demand. You're right. But, it doesn't have to be that way.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

I think that cycle is what I am struggling with understanding. For example, because of Katrina, Baton Rouge has seen a huge influx of population due to displacement. Now their economy is struggling even more.

But this makes no sense to me. If you have an influx in population, then yourveconomy should grow. Forvexample, these new people need homes another services. So if these people were put to work building homes then providing services, demand would increase and job growth would increase. When did more people become bad for van economy? People are the economy. Logic would dictate that we should see growth. Why don't we?

This, to me, is a sign that something sinister is afoot. And that the economy is being purposely crashed. Maybe I am paranoid and you can help me make sense of this?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

In capitalism the people who have the capital (wealth, money) first, or the most capital, are in control of the wealth. This is true on a micro level and on a macro level (think of 1st world nations vs. 3rd world nations - the colonials had the capital first). The 1% who control most of the wealth are not using their capital to create good paying jobs here in America. They are paying very low wages to American workers (even workers who work full time can often qualify for food stamps) mostly because they can. No one stops them. Greed has taken over. Thirty years ago the average CEO made about 40 times the wage of the average worker. Today, the average CEO earns a whopping 343 times the average worker's wage. Also, since the 1% care only about making a profit they create jobs overseas where they can pay lower wages and make more money for themselves.

So, if many people move to a place, but they all have little capital to begin with, and the people with the capital are not interested in hiring those people to create demand in America, then the cycle of low demand continues. The people moving to Baton Rouge are likely poor people. They do not have the capital or money to put into building a house. They cannot get the economy rolling on their own.

Some would argue, and I'm not sure what is the exact right answer, that there are structural problems in the economy. Problems with free trade agreements, repeal of Glass-Steagall which separated commercial and investment banking, unfair tax structure, and very importantly politicians who are bought and who work for Wall Street.

[-] 1 points by Nulambda (265) 8 years ago

Got it. And thank you. I would like you to take a look at: http://occupywallst.org/forum/direct-democracy-via-the-internet/ And tell me what you think.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

I read and responded to your post. Forgot to send you this link. Have a look:

www.getmoneyout.com

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

There was demand. Then they sent the job to mexico and paid them pennies on the dollar to do it. Then that decreased demand for product because the guy who originally had the job has no income to buy products.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

True about them moving jobs, but in the end, raising taxes on the rich will not stop them from creating jobs. The 1% keep saying, don't tax us, we are the job creators. My point is that they will create jobs, no matter what, if there is demand for the goods and services they are providing. If they can make a profit, they will hire people to produce the products no matter how much they are taxed. If their costs go up through higher taxes they will just reflect that in the price of the goods.

Now the moving jobs overseas is another discussion.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

So I should move to mexico or china for a job?? There is no demand because of there actions. Good or bad right or wrong it dont matter at this point. They specifically GM messed up. They are paying for it now in there profits. They have been changing and now they are making profit and recreating jobs. If we used the bail out money given to banks and used it to recreate jobs Income goes up. With more income demand goes up. Demand goes up jobs increase again. This cycle has to be recreated.at a point it will balance out but at this point we are headed for destruction.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

I agree with you. There are so many things to fix. That is why OWS is so broad and has so many demands.

I just don't want to hear the argument that the job creators won't create jobs if we raise their taxes.

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

It isn't going to necessarily going to create jobs directly. But it will pay for all the bills that the wealthy are racking up. Plus they can use that money to create jobs that can rebuild the infrastructure of the US roads schools that boost in jobs will help create more permanent jobs in the future by creating demand.

[-] 0 points by OWSisaherosmovement (10) 8 years ago

but every time my tax is reduced it prompts me to want to buy lots of stuff, thereby causing demand:):) i cannot believe there are people who get away with that as their "political pitch"--it certainly dispels the notion that voters are smart.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

The Bush tax cuts have been in place for a decade. They have not created jobs. Are you aware that a 9.1% unemployment rate means there are not enough jobs to go around. It does not mean people do not want to work. Stop trying to shame people into silence.

[-] -1 points by proudpoormangop1 (6) 8 years ago

nanny type government regulations create less funds to pay an employee, that includes taxes. have you ever worked for a poor person? why cant we just cut spending and cut taxes across the board. if you had more expenses than you had in income would you go out and try to find a higher paying job or would you cut back on spending? some goes for the government.

[-] 4 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

As far as I know OWS is not looking to target small businesses, but the big corporations that keep astronomical profits for the CEO, top execs and shareholders while throwing scraps to workers. Small businesses are part of the 99%.

[-] 3 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

I have no problem with cutting spending, as long as you start with the biggest spenders of all: the defense department and the military. Close all of our bases overseas and withdraw all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. Why should our military personnel get to suck at the government's teat for their entire lives? They should all get jobs in the private sector, where they can enjoy the benefits of free-market capitalism. Besides, the U.S. military hasn't "protected" the American people from a legitimate threat in about 65 years (and, in fact, has--in both overt and covert operations--killed about 8,000,000 people around the globe since 1945), so why should they receive a government salary?

[-] -1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

republicans say that the reason for them not creating jobs is the uncertainty about will their taxes go up or more regulation

[-] 5 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

It's nonsense. It's demand. There is no demand for their services or goods. Don't believe that utter nonsense about regulation and taxes.

[-] 2 points by ddiggs690 (277) 8 years ago

There is demand out there just not money to pay for it. There isn't a lack of people who want homes, food or energy. It's that these people do not have money to buy them. I agree stimulus was needed, but the stimulus should have been spent to keep the wheels of the economy turning. At the moment, we have plenty of properties wasting away and the banks that own the properties are the one's receiving the funds. I understand how the economy works and the economy only knows how much money is out there, not where the money is. If stimulus is lent to individuals or to banks, the economy doesn't care. Instead of houses rotting away and people not being able to afford it, we can lend straight to the people to keep them in these homes and at the same time this will give liquidity to the banks to lend out. If this were a liquidity crisis like the experts say, then this would be a more reasonable solution than giving blank checks to institutions that are gaining record profits without actually providing more services. I don't mind companies making profits. I just can't stand when companies make additional profits without actually providing something in return.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Agreed.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

Bingo

[-] -3 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake

[-] 2 points by OWSisaherosmovement (10) 8 years ago

have you been around or locked in a closet? both parties are crap, full of scoundrels who don't know how to manage the country, but only to serve their corporate masters and enrich themselves.

[-] -2 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

dems have done nothing but support while republicans attack what are they so mad about or scared that they will have to help the middle class

[-] 1 points by Vooter (441) 8 years ago

"Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote."

Sorry, I'm as left-wing as they come, but that's EXACTLY where we are right now in the United States. If you don't think Democrats and Republicans are two sides of the same coin, then you're a dupe. The two-party system is SPECIFICALLY designed to keep the rabble arguing amongst themselves while the elite loot the nation's blood and treasure. Your statement that "[at] some point in time you're going to have to pick one [party]" is exactly what makes you part of the problem. Get it? It's no different than the Politburo telling the Soviet people that at some point, they're going to have to pick the Communist party. That doesn't mean, however, that there's no hope for change--it's just means there's no hope for change under the current two-party system. That's the whole point--the current system needs to be destroyed, because it will not go go away on its own. And it needs to go away. You just don't seem to understand how far gone this country is. But you will...

[-] 1 points by Resist2011 (8) 8 years ago

Touche... clear as a bell... this is where we either become slaves or free at last...

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

Wow this is starting to get old

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

He's said it before. He'll say it again.

[-] 1 points by libertarianincle (312) from Cleveland, OH 8 years ago

LOL!

[-] 1 points by platypusrex256 (7) 8 years ago

your distinctions are all arbitrary and imagined.

[-] -1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

you are not ows

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23149) 8 years ago

Great post, oceanweed. I agree with everything.

[-] 0 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 8 years ago

sure, lets choose the Dems, then we can all sit at home collecting entitlements. wont that be a wonderful, happy place....until our society is broke. why are liberals so friggen stupid?!?!?!

[-] 0 points by briceryant (47) 8 years ago

Truly, if the progressive class in America still sees Obama as a savior after the uncountable betrayals, we are fucked. How badly does he have to ravage you, without lube, before you realize you're being ravaged? Larry Summers? Not supporting a public option? Refusing to endorse union card-check? Expanding a hopeless mercenary war for profit? CORPORATE SELLOUT

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 8 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=share

this video says it all. the occupy wall street movement has force and passion and is rooted in widespread frustration. however its target - -wall street -- is off the mark. look at this you-tube video to see where the OWS efforts would be more appropriately targeted.

[-] 1 points by TakeAmericaBack (39) 8 years ago

All I know is that the White House established the playing rules for corporate America, not Wall Street. When YOU THE COMMON MAN take a tax deduction on your taxes - you are the same as the corporations - just doing what Washington allows you to do.

OWS should be right in front of the White House. Wall Street does not make policy!!! Go to where the decisions are MADE. White House.

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 8 years ago

AGREED

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

ows will never support republican views if so name one

[-] 0 points by briceryant (47) 8 years ago

get over your left/right democrap/rethuglican thinking. Just because I don't support rethuglicans doesn't mean I support the democrats, who are sellouts.

The two-party system is a scam that has been bought by the corporations. Your whole belief system is a lie!

[-] 1 points by oceanweed (521) 8 years ago

you dont understand politics so you blame both sides and not vote exactly what republicans want

[-] -1 points by TakeAmericaBack (39) 8 years ago

4 trillion in new spending in 3 yrs, nice. ANOTHER spending plan after the first one didn't work? Nice.

But hey, he talks good.

[-] 3 points by HitGirl (2263) 8 years ago

Definitely a twilight zone fantasy nightmare brought to you by the dark infected minds of people so wealthy and greedy that they are capable of destroying the greatest country that mankind has ever known. I don't think evil is too strong a word.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree completely, it's unfettered GREED!!!



[-] 3 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

You need to ensure that money gets circulated to all parts of the economy, through wages, job "creation" and retention...The economy is tanking because the money is concentrated at the top..If people don't realize that this is an engineered situation then I don't know what to say.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You got it right nickhowdy!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Thank you too..

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

House GOP's "Job Creating" Spending Cuts Destroyed 370,000 Jobs

Excellent article:


http://www.truth-out.org/house-gops-job-creating-spending-cuts-destroyed-370000-jobs/1319911348


[-] 3 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 8 years ago

The jobs are in the technology sector. And in health care.

[-] 2 points by daverao (124) 8 years ago

I am Ows supporter but I won,t says jobs are not there. If you have technical or professional degree you can find the job. You have to work hard. If you liberal arts.degree then good luck. I am serious , we have to see the market demand. That is why Indians and Chinese are successful because majority are from science and technology. I am employed and all my friends are employed. We all have prof. Degrees. I am supporting Ows to take money out congress. I will vote for Obama if he returns the.money taken from corporations. I am not against rich and hard work.

[-] 3 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Entrepreneurs are "job creators."

We need more new businesses and new jobs. Not economic/tax policies that give already wealthy people more money for no benefit.

[-] 2 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

The problem with the Rich that they accumulate so much money and sitting on it .,and collecting more and more is bankrupt the goverment and the world

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly, banks are not lending to small businesses. They get bailed out and turn and screw the middle class. In spite of all that our economy is coming back. We need to keep our lead as a technological gaint and pull up our middle class with education, training, and leading the world into the age of incredible technological advances. We could actually do great things if we don't annihilate ourselves first. Just a thought.

Thanks for posting

The Puzzler

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

Duh, the rich need tax breaks to plant the special greenstalk seeds -- so the giant magical greenstalks will grow -- so we can then climb way, way up, higher and higher, and higher -- until finally we can try to get the golden job guarded by the hungry giants who want to eat us, I thought everyone knew that fairy tale.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LoL. As long as we can worship the jolly green gaint as a GOD, count me in, my friend.

We can always dream, right?

[-] 3 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

Rats, I let the cat out of the hat. Now that the job creators know we're onto their golden goose scam; they'll be nimble and they'll be quick and they'll gerrymander their voting district; and they'll huff and they'll puff and they'll foreclose our houses down; and they'll get worn out and test this bed, to soft, and they'll test this bed, to hard, and they'll test this bed, ah just right, and they'll lay down for a nap, and we will come home and catch them by suprise, and kick their humpty-dumpty asses!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LOL - Your right we're onto those Job Creators. They might just have to climb up that green stalk and stay there. We won't miss them. : )

[-] 2 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 8 years ago

rub-a-dub-dub, three job creators in a tub, and how do you think they got there? the CEO, the Banker, the Federal policy-maker -- they all jumped out of a rotten potato! 'twas enough to make a fish stare. rub-a-dub-dubs, good riddance to their ugly mugs.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The republicans have not stopped repeating the lie that the rich are the job creators. It is incessant but that's what creates the narratives: repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat the same lies over, and over, and over, and over, and over!!!

Then BELIEVE It's easy, repeat after me..............

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The republicans have not stopped repeating the lie that the rich are the job creators. It is incessant but that's what creates the narratives: repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat the same lies over, and over, and over, and over, and over!!!

Then BELIEVE It's easy, repeat after me..............

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

It's a pattern!!!

[-] 2 points by opensociety4us (914) from Norwalk, CT 8 years ago

The 1% is spending more to implement tax breaks than to create jobs. At the moment, gaming the system is less risky than investment.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree!

Thanks for your post!




[-] 2 points by belltor (60) 8 years ago

There aren't any incentives to invest when you are receiving enormous tax breaks. Why take the risk when you don't have to. When the top tax rates were higher the rich did invest more in job creation because it led to more money for them. But why do that now. They have more money because they are keeping more of those monies. They save that money in off shore accounts or swiss bank accounts. They sit home and get taxed on their unearned income , capitol gains at a 15% tax rate while your earned income is being taxed at 28 to 30%. All courtesy of the Bush administration.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We certainly did have healthy robust job growth when the rich paid their fair share in taxes. Your right on the money on your post. You made an excellent contribution to this thread. I appreciate that!

Thanks belltor!!!

[-] 2 points by belltor (60) 8 years ago

i like to think of it this way when this country was raw and the same robber barons of today existed back in the 1800's there was a tremendous need for the strong backs of our great and grand parents. They came from all over the world to seek the opportunity of America. But lets us be honest they were paid slaves. Economic slaves if you will. Yes it was extremely better than from whence they came but they were being exploited. African Americans were wrangled to America and these were the builders of this country. After FDR AND WORLD WAR TWO, things like the GI bill, unionization and federal laws that began to protect workers rights helped improve the economic status of workers but the ruling class wasn't going to have any of this. There would be no middle class if they could help it An educated workforce might lead to a challenge to their clear power hold. Can't have that. So if you will there was a very smalll period when we as workers made strides and those strides made for a strong middle class that was leading to a better america. Too for them. So now the children and the great grand children of the original economic slaves aren't necessary anymore. Technology and political power have allowed them to exploit offshore.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Belltor, nice to hear from you again. Your post is precious. Very good information.

Thanks my friend!!!

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

The Bush tax cut was extended by Obama and Congress for 2 additional years so we still won't see any job creation from the rich.

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

The rich already created those jobs that made them rich in the first place and they are not going to bring them back to this country.

It is up to the average Joe to get creative and think of a new idea that can manufacture something that everybody needs or wants right now.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Demand creates jobs. If there's something we want we're not getting now, it can work! We will buy!

Thanks Barb!

[-] 2 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

It takes brand new ideas to create jobs and I wouldn't expect all those corporations that began with their ideas, made it a hugh success off the backs of hard working Americans then replaced them with foreign cheaper labor to create jobs here.

Why would any big corporation that found cheaper labor to have any incentive to create jobs here in America? Please be realistic when I say the jobs of yesterday are gone for good.

[-] 2 points by VERUM (108) 8 years ago

The simple answer is in CHINA!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Mic Check!!!

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

I agree that we were hoodwinked into reducing taxes on the rich for years under republicans believing the lies we were told they would create jobs. We have to be much skeptical of these politicians who lie. If they repeat these lies enough they think we'll believe. Guess they were right. That is the narrative they repeat over and over so we think it's true.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, you hit the nail on the head!

Thanks for your post!

[-] 2 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

We in this together NOW!

[-] 2 points by Sophia1982 (36) 8 years ago

You all need to stop thinking that there is a United States. International corporations don't respect borders and everyone should take a closer look at the Federal Reserve. How is it possible that private banks buy our debt? Why do we allow that? Why is our economy dependent on the Federal debt? If wages and living standards rise in all other countries we won't have to worry about jobs going over seas. Let's just stop the greed.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree there's too much greed, and we need to pull all of ourselves up collectively by our bootstraps, this is the way we make it, together. The technology is there for us to create a new world with compassion. We just have to come up to speed and educate ourselves in more creative ways to step into this future.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Stop the Greeeeeeeeeeeeeeed

[-] 2 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Where are the jobs? India and China. No you can't go there and get one of their jobs..NOT ALLOWED..The free trade goes just one way...Now your demand does create jobs in these countries..But since all us Americans stopped consuming we are really causing a Hell of an issue for these folks..If you all could spend a little more on the old credit card things will be fine for a few months.....Whoops, I forgot you don't have a job...When are they going to ever use that "D" word as in Depression...I'm guessing there has to be mass suicide or something beforehand..

[-] 2 points by stephenadler (118) 8 years ago

Giving tax breaks to the wealthy under the mantra that it will stimulate the economy is one of the biggest lies ever pushed on the blind citizens of this country. And it continues today with the Boehner and Cantor.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree with you stephenadler, although from my intro I'm sure no one will be surprised. Most times it disgusts me how politicians lie to those susceptible to the lies who want to believe. Some folks just don't dig deep enough to uncover the truth of these things. For one, it's harder to do, you have check your facts over and over. And two, if it doesn't fit the narrative for your side then it's easier to just ignore it. Neither side is ever 100% correct, but they are never equal in their disregard for facts. One side usually is doing more of it. Whatever side you find yourself, that's anyone, you had better get the facts straight and don't lie. If you know, you don't know, don't make it up to make some ego-centric point. The Truth is what I after. And if I'm wrong, I want to know. And I'll admit if I'm wrong immediately. I will stick with the Truth which is evident.

[-] 1 points by Justice4All (285) 8 years ago

Absolutely.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 7 years ago

welcome to the twilight zone, wher'e just starting to wake up. In all other perponderence of government you have to prove you did what you said you would do. but the weathiest people of this country get a tax break with a nod that says "gee we hope you might create a job or two"

perhaps companies should get a tax break if they in fact hire someone with proof like ie ssn of said hired employee but that would be common sense something washington has not seen in decades

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

We can hope that this awakening doesn't stop until enough people know so we don't travel this horrible road of income inequality any more.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

The RICH are not JOB Creators.

This is a Big Lie!!!



[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/?mobile=nc

I have the answer to why they can't explain it... it's because they just pocketed all the money!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

LoL, They always think their so clever. Some of us do not miss it but they know we usually are too few to matter much. Some day we WILL demand our politicians do the will of all the people not just the rich.

The Puzzler

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

For those who obviously forgot. A little reminder. Demand creates jobs, not the rich.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I got something for these Repugnants to trickle down on!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The repugnant party has reached the end. All americans now know what they are ALL about!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

They did get the tax cuts, so where are the jobs, where?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We will wait until hell freezes over, but nah, we will just kick the a$$es of those in congress who cuddle the rich!

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

It's usury ... it's all about "usury" ... money is created when money is loaned ... we are reaching the end of the cycle ... barrow more with interest or face austerity measures or both ... but at this point it no longer matters ... This ends with complete enslavement or forcefully removing the money changers, oligarchs and their people/sheepeople managers ...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Reaganomics is over. The 30 year experiment has about destroyed the middle class.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

much longer then 30 years ... you just have not realized it yet ... debt slavery

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

OK?

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 8 years ago

I have been wondering about this for a while now, could somebody tell what the percentage of unemployment is currently in the United States?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The official number is 9%. But there's many factors involved. A posted a excellent LINK which can help better understand. Good question!

LINK: http://useconomy.about.com/od/economicindicators/a/unemploy-curren.htm

[-] 1 points by Algee (182) 8 years ago

Thanks for the link, it's interesting to see how many millions of people are hidden behind a simple 8%. The French politicians do this all the time, thru hide the big numbers behind small percentages and are confident that people won't go checking themselves.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

NPR Tries to Track Down Those Millionaire Job Creators

Friday 9 December 2011 by: Peter Hart, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting | Report

Dean Baker (12/9/11) flagged this NPR Morning Edition report today (12/9/11), and it's well worth a positivity.

In the debate over the payroll tax cut, Democrats want to pay for extending the tax break with a surtax on the wealthy. Republicans claim--usually without being challenged by reporters--that a surtax on millionaires would be an attack on job-creating small-business owners.

So NPR decided to go to GOP officials and ask to speak with these small-business-owning, millionaire job-creators. Turned out there was trouble finding any:

We wanted to talk to business owners who would be affected. 

So NPR requested help from numerous Republican congressional offices, including House and Senate leadership. They were unable to produce a single millionaire job creator for us to interview.

So we went to the business groups that have been lobbying against the surtax. 

Again, three days after putting in a request, none of them was able to find someone for us to talk to.

They did find a few wealthy business owners willing to talk--and they said their personal tax rate wasn't a factor in their hiring decisions.

Imagine if journalists did this kind of thing all the time?

ANY COMMENTS?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

This is a good article ................................................................................................................................................................ "Greed is a bottomless pit which exhausts the person in an endless effort to satisfy the need without ever reaching satisfaction."

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Please, comment, this is a recent article and it clearly dispels the myth.

[-] 1 points by Puff6962BorgTroll (28) 8 years ago

I never met a rich entrepreneur. An entrepreneur is a dangerous and desperate man. Any entrepreneur who tells you that he has a plan is a liar. An entrepreneur's plan is to survive for one more day.

[-] 1 points by HPolloi (74) 8 years ago

The rich aren't job creators. "Job creators" is branding. It's also bullshit.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very True!!!

[-] 1 points by tr289 (916) from Chicago, IL 8 years ago

The rich are not job creators the middle class is. When the middle class has money and buys things it creates demand. When there is demand it creates jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You got it right my friend. It is demand which creates jobs especially when the middle class is doing well demand goes up.

Good Post! Thanks!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 8 years ago

Oh there are jobs. They just can't give them to us yet in this political climate. They want us to slave away 100 hours a week, including children and elderly, pulling gold out of mines and oil from the ground. They own the money trees, it is nearly time for harvest. They will never lift a finger, we will toil tell we die, on the job.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The middle class certainly does have a long hard climb. The bootom is dropping and we're lucky to pretty much have a job let alone any pay increases. My pay has been stagnate for many years now. But guess who's incomes still go up briskly and still get bonuses even in a down economy. You guessed right, the rich!!!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 8 years ago

Because labor is worth next to NOTHING and the wealthy don't have to lift a FINGER for their money!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

They put money over people. Pure capitalism, everything and anything for a buck. It's pure GREEEED



[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

GOP Supercommittee Member Admits Bush Tax Cuts Didn’t Create Jobs, Can’t Explain Why

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/12/04/381510/upton-cant-explain-tax-cuts-jobs/

HUNT: But I’m asking, why did the economy grow a lot? Why were more jobs created in the previous decade under higher taxes than in this decade under lower taxes?

UPTON: I don’t know specifically the answer to that question. I can – I can maybe merit a guess. But, I mean, in large part is because our job – we lost jobs. I mean, look at the jobs report that came out this last week, three-hundred- some-thousand people actually stopped looking for jobs.

[-] 1 points by ComeTogetherNOW (650) 8 years ago

I think we are making ground on this issue. It does seem that people are realizing the message here and the old narrative of the rich making jobs for us is being revealed as a myth largely bolstered by the republicans.

Thanks Puzzler, you make a difference!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Your welcome!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

There aren't enough Rich??? or maybe we've just got a defective batch.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, yes, defectively GREEDY, that are Super Rich, and Super Super Rich!!!

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (33802) from Coon Rapids, MN 8 years ago

There aren't enough Rich????

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

to be exact it is 1%

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

We need to be our OWN job creators and support our local small businesses and local markets!

We have become lazy in that way......waiting for others to 'give' us a job.

Local , local , local!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Demand creates jobs, nothing else. Others who buy things create jobs for us.

I do agree we need to act locally. Good point!

[-] 1 points by Dutchess (499) 8 years ago

Today we have Big Corp/Big Banks in bed with corrupt and bought up Govt VERSUS Small business/banks and the Individual.

All legislation is created to stifle the small guy!

[-] 1 points by Kevabe (81) 8 years ago

Well if youre out crapping in the park, it isn't going to boost your resume!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

But, won't it boost your BS level?

Isn't that what politicians do so well. BS on parade : )

[-] 1 points by Kevabe (81) 8 years ago

Not as much as yall!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, then, your words to god's ears. We are better than the best politicians.

And political power, powers the change in government. This is exactly what the OWS movement wants. Golden moment. Whewwwwww

Thanks Kevabe!!!

[-] 1 points by reckoning (53) 8 years ago

In china and India, thanks to the stupid american regulations.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We need to stop the outsourcing. No more incentives!

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 8 years ago

They're making jobs in China and a bunch of other foreign countries. It's called maximizing profits and job creation through outsourcing. They are creating jobs, just not here in the USA.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly right!!!

[-] 1 points by ab1 (5) 8 years ago

Isnt everyone already an employee of the government. They don't pay us but we do work for them. I guess employee is not the right word, slave maybe? I don't think the government should subsidize wages, but there should be no income tax for the first 30,000 of wages.

[-] 1 points by ab1 (5) 8 years ago

They are not job creators, they are money makers. Sure they may need to hire a few people to work in their business but that is not their purpose. If they can get a machine to do the work they will.

Corporate greed is the problem. Consumers create jobs. If consumers can't afford to buy much, then you don't need many people to build it.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree.

Thanks for your post!

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 8 years ago

Consumers eat food and need to get out of the rain. That's enough to make us slaves our whole lives, and they know it. These wealthy would LOVE to make us like Egyptian slaves, leaving us to build them pyramids of gold.

[-] 1 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

The jobs are going oversees because of the hostile business climate in the U.S. . Capital moves to where it is appreciated. Going Galt as the expression goes. Think Atlas Shrugged is fiction? look around lol!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, by your words, it's not profit incentive sending the jobs overseas, it's hostility?

First time I heard that one. Turn down the narrative!

And Ayn Rand, she was a hypocrite. She's a role model for the bad side of humanity, to put very lightly.

[-] 0 points by aries (463) from Nutley, NJ 8 years ago

constant vilification of business from the white house, OWS, threat of increased taxes, regulation etc. who wouldn't move their business overseas? You don't like Rand - ok. her observations written in her books just seem to to mirror real life. So you are the judge & jury of morality now?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I'm the judge of Truth which is Self Evident!


I am firmly convinced that the passionate will for justice and truth has done more to improve {the human condition} than calculating political shrewdness which in the long run only breeds general mistrust.

Albert Einstein

[-] 1 points by PepperGirl (13) 8 years ago

what you should be asking, rather than where is what from 8 or 80 years ago, is where is it NOW. Obama has been in office 3 years, why are you still giving Bush the responsibility? didn't we elect Obama?

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Last I checked the Bush policies are still in effect. They weren't repealed. SO, yes, his eight years of presidency is still having an effect. Also, the repug congress has obstructed Obama at every turn. The Wars he started still continue to suckle on our national treasure. So, yes, the Bush legacy endures.

[-] 0 points by PepperGirl (13) 8 years ago

so by this logic we could further go back to find Clinton at fault. yes?

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

If he gave tax cuts to the rich you could but he didn't. In fact, during the Clinton years they paid their fair share and the economy was booming. We only wish for those days now.

[-] 1 points by yarichin (269) 8 years ago

They do not create jobs they create money. If the government borrows $1 they must pay the FED back $1.06 the Fed is the only source of money. The government has to borrow more, in this case $1.06 and now owes $1.12 the only source of money is the FED...... you see where this is going. If the government ever paid of the FED by returning every dollar in circulation we would have no currency and there would still be interest to pay. It is a scam. Forget the rich slaves, $250,00 a year, they are just holding more debt meaning they have less than a person holding no money.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That must be that bubble money. Once the bubble bursts, oooops, where's the money, poof! Like magic. Magic numbers racket.

And, as usual, fueled heavily on GREED

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

WORLD BANKER MAKES (a not so) STUNNING CONFESSION

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOwZwkhFemQ&feature=youtu.be

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 8 years ago

WELOCME to the AGE OF ABUNDANCE! THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH JOBS, EVER AGAIN!!!! Technology has replaced the need for human labor. Eventually only 5% of the entire human population will need to work. Right now, only 50% of the population needs to work to provide food and subsistence shelter for everyone. Stop trying to CREATE unneeded jobs - its no solution....

Here is an idea: When people have no work they go:

  1. Global Fair market labor System to find work (includes union and non-union systems)
  2. If not paid work, they look for volunteer / non-profit work
  3. Fair regulated subsidy system based on the data on a daily basis. All of the above economic systems were developed 10 years ago. We expected, at that time, that humanity will not embrace the next sensible way for 30 years. That means we have another 20 years to wait until humanity and governments implement this system. Or will Occupy make it happen sooner?
[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We need a future where intelligent rational thinking is encouraged and political posturing for the greed of money is discouraged!!!

Labor intensive jobs will be reduced. This is good but we do need to adapt.

Thanks for your post!

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 8 years ago

I created the Internet Agency of Economic Justice 5 years ago. Private security agencies are the only thing that will "discourage" the greed and theft - in my opinion. http://www.iaej.org

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I will take a look at your link.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 8 years ago

Thanks - the info is a little outdated, but the IAEJ will make some big arrests.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Cool. I'm definitely interested. One way or another this is EXACTLY what stops GREED. Since there's a natural tendency towards greed when unchecked we have to make it so there's a damn good chance the greedy get caught! It makes them think twice and that can certainly help.

[-] 1 points by joe100 (306) 8 years ago

Please check out this as well: http://www.occupyvideo.org I want to create a video dist site that has all the functions of a video site, organize it better than others, and MAKE it so the video owens GET THE MONEY!!! not youtube and google.... it will be a wealth distribution system for occupy

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

In times of declining economies demand comes from those still employed. Especially middle-class government jobs. But since the start of this economic crisis the Alfred E. Newman libertarian right-wing economists have insisted on cutting middle-class government jobs so that for every two private sector jobs created one government job has been cut. Literally, two steps forward one step backward.

Government infrastructure and middle-class government employee quality assurance jobs would inject billions of dollars and consumer demand into small local businesses but the right-wing libertarians "just say no".

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It is discouraging when it seems many put politics in front of sound rational financial decisions.

[-] 1 points by aahpat (1407) 8 years ago

Too many reality challenged libertarian economists using short term gains solutions on long term growth problems. Penny wise pound foolish.

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

True, we must invest in our future!

[-] 1 points by Riott (44) 8 years ago

Tax breaks = more profit. In the business world you only hire more people if the labor is required. You don't just hire people for the helI of it or because you have extra money to spend. Extra money = PROFIT not Hire more people. That whole idea is ridiculous. That's why government shouldn't make business decisions. If somebody gave you a 100 bucks and said go hire somebody to mow your lawn. The first thing anyone would do is stick that money in their pocket and mow their own damn lawn. That's just an example.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Higher Demand = More Profit

Tax Cuts to the Rich = Higher Deficits, and Outsourcing More Jobs

You hire more labor to met demand. : )

(As for your analogy, excuse me for not getting it)

[-] 1 points by Riott (44) 8 years ago

My analogy is simple, just because you have extra money to spend does not mean you hire people with it. Extra money = profit in the eyes of corporations. They don't move that money to the "Hire Only Money" folder. They tally it up with the rest of their profits and report it. If anything, it only helps their stocks and fatten their bank account(s).

In other words Puzzlin, if the government reduced all your taxes would you go hire somebody with the extra money? The answer is NO. Regardless with what you say, no person would hire anyone.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, you wouldn't put your extra money under your mattress would you?


[-] 0 points by Riott (44) 8 years ago

That has nothing to do with my post or this topic. If you must know, I own a nice fat safe. Screw the mattress.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I totally agree and these are truly meaningless degrading jobs. The easier a job can be mechanized it's most likely the less meaning it afforded in the first place. The idea of what a job is has evolved. Maybe some day jobs can very meaning and even fun. We will always need jobs but higher level and higher levels. Maybe OJT is one answer is help people adapt.

But, anyway, we must get people employed and we can do it. We must be creative and find a solution. I don't want to live in a world where there's super rich and the dirt poor. We can have a better society, and one where we work for the good of all.

[-] 1 points by rbe (687) 8 years ago

I think we should start preparing ourselves for a jobless future. I think creating jobs just for the sake of creating employment is wrong, and we should focus on productivity.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It may be in the future that work becomes optional as robots do all previous known chores. It depends on what you want. Those who do work and contribute to making better robots get rewarded for that. There would always be incentive to work. But work would be less about survival and more about getting ahead.

This is looking about 40-50 yrs into the future. And it's predicated upon the world somehow coming to it's senses and preserving the planet and it's inhabitants.

[-] 1 points by MercD (20) from Spanaway, WA 8 years ago

In Washington, where the farmers are hiring inmates from the state to pick apples at $22 an hour because of labor shortages... come out here, we have jobs

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Speaking of that, Alabama just passed a law down there discouraging immigrant workers, their was an exodus and basically the blow back was the farmers couldn't find the labor to pick tomatoes. So, they rotted, the farmers lost money. The Alabama law is most likely going to hurt them even further in these hard times. Just compounding their troubles. Of course, it's the republicans play giving their constituents their "red meat". They love that tough immigrant stance. Turns out republican voters.

[-] 1 points by TheScreamingHead (239) 8 years ago

The rich are NOT the job creators. Majority of jobs are created by businesses with less than 500 employees.

http://purplefastballs.com

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thanks for your post. This message resonates because it is true. Jobs come from demand not these rich tyrants who send their money overseas



[-] 1 points by infonomics (393) 8 years ago

Stop kidding yourselves. America is now Oceania. Get used to a boot stamping in your face for the rest of your life. 2 + 2 = whatever the 1% say.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

But we will not stop fighting. We will not go quietly.

No way, No how, we're shouting through that darkness !!!


[-] 1 points by Polarity1 (7) 8 years ago

We call them The 1%. The Right calls them Job Creators. Their team's star propagandist, Frank Luntz, is a genius at framing issues. But this time he's in over his head.

I agree with tr289 and beautifulworld: The fact is that nobody anywhere creates jobs unless there's more demand for a company's product than can be supplied with the number of workers on hand. The Right knows that because any business owner (like tr289) would know that.

Consumers are the job creators. When we had a huge, thriving middle class, the economy surged. As the middle class continues to shrink, so will the demand for additional workers.

We are not only the 99% -- WE ARE THE JOB CREATORS!

Polarity1 (NYC)

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Totally Agree!!!

WE ARE THE 99%, WE ARE JOB CREATORS!!!

We need a fair tax system, stop outsourcing America, and bring back good paying middle class jobs, which make our country strong!

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by OneMansOpinion (76) 8 years ago

CHINA! your jobs are in China.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-war-with-america-was-won-before-the-first-shot/

When the jobless rate is running around 12% in the San Fran Bay area then its easy to see why the tax revenue has fallen.

I am not an American but these days I feel more of a patriot than most American's i listen to.

A strong America more than projecting power, projects ideals and values that hold back the dark tides that threaten our freedom in a very real way.

I remember watching the Pearl Harbor movie when the Japanese commander on the command ship after the attack said. "I am afraid that we have woken a sleeping giant".

Not sure if that line was true but you have to realize the circumstances of that statement. America was a massive industrial Engine at the time and focused on a goal it could achieve anything.

Those factories are all junk yards now. Vacant and powerless. The skills that the American worked had have all been taught to competing nations.

Some of those factories were closed so that the companies could improve profits for a few quarters.

Before world war one we knew the value of "Honest days work for an honest days pay".

There were no policies that closed the factories. The banks were not to blame for sending the jobs elsewhere and as the workers joined the ranks of the unemployed we continue to buy cheap stuff made somewhere else.

The reality is that the average household spends $12800 a year on consumer goods. 80% of these purchases are for overseas goods.

You might as well put $10240 and mail it off to China. Not sure what that figure looks like nationally but its a lot.

[-] 1 points by ddyer0617 (41) from Salisbury, MD 8 years ago

The jobs are overseas, coincidentally you get a tax break if you open factories overseas but still call yourself an "American made product"

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

There it is, we give incentives to send our jobs overseas, and why?

Slave labor is CHEAP.

What American would like to compete with slaves?

ddyer, thanks for your post, hopefully people reading this thread will understand. That was my intention.

[-] 1 points by koloneci (72) 8 years ago

The companies cannot provide the jobs because the consumer is not buying their products because the consumer does have the money to buy the companies products because the consumer doesn't have a job.

Is that clear?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Koloneci, you got it. It's about demand. They can't hear that word because their narrative is so heavy.

Also, when we cut those taxes to the rich, the only jobs they made were overseas.

So, now, if we raise their taxes, they threaten to do what they been doing all along, make no new jobs. Saying they'll lay off workers especially if there's demand, is a lie, businesses keep their customers happy by shipping product made by workers.

Steven2002. Wah! Wah! Go ahead, be ignorant & lay off workers you need. You don't need the stinking money. Wah! WAH!

[-] 1 points by koloneci (72) 8 years ago

Observe the current stock market. 11/09/11

What would you say if I told you the U.S. gov. is presently attempting to bail out the European bond holders?

Scenario, the U.S. Borrows the money from China. Inflates the U.S. stock exchange, siphons the market as it appears to be reeling from day to day news.

Now, look at the markets very suspiciously.

You'll see that America is getting robbed as we sleep.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That warrants an investigation. We borrow from China true, but that has been way exaggerated by the right wingers. The narrative would make you believe China owns us and they'll come to collect soon. That's really back to this Simple Simon says stuff.

Cartoons are on TV. Rational clear thinking can help us all immensely.

[-] 1 points by koloneci (72) 8 years ago

You're right. How can we really know. Here's a site the show who has bought U.S. treasury bonds. Don't know if it correct. but I have to actually find the public record, if there is one.

http://www-958.ibm.com/software/data/cognos/manyeyes/visualizations/owners-of-us-treasury-bonds-oct-20

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

koloneci, thank you for the link. The 99% is movement that can't be stopped.

The truth can't be stopped !!!

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 8 years ago

The 99%'s ability to purchase creates demand. Demand create creates jobs.

When GM started using robots in the late 70's, the unions (my Dad) started the slogan "Robots don't buy cars!". Very insightful.

Most of the hurt we are still feeling today was CAUSED by investment banks giving loans to people who couldn't afford them, then selling the toxic debt to investors as AAA investments.

PLEASE remember that even in prosperous times, you should NOT buy a house you can't afford. There was blame on both sides. Twice as much blame on the banks side, but blame on both sides non-the-less.

Blowing up this bubble was a decades long process which popped in 2008. The housing industry failed, which hurt the new home builders first, then suppliers, and on down food chain.

It also hurt peoples "portfolios", be they saving for retirement or their children's college, or just investing for the heck of it.

The Bush Tax cuts had very little to do with CAUSING the mess we're in. Rampant corruption and in corporations and their influence in Washington is what caused this.

I don't remember being promised prosperity, home ownership or wealth. I remember being promised the right to the pursuit of happiness, that's all.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SO, then, I guess pursuing happiness must have absolutely nothing to do with money as you characterize it.

So, why do you think any of us care to work for money, if it has nothing to do with us being happy or having realistic plans to retire some day?


Something doesn't add up, do you see it?

[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 8 years ago

Wow!!!

I tried to make the point that the 99% need jobs to get the money to create demand.

Then I made the point that no-one promised anyone that they would be wealthy, only that they would have the right to pursue becoming wealthy.

I don't believe I "characterized" money in my comment.

Did you read the post I was responding to before you read my comment? Did you actually read my comment?

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Money is usually at the center in any worthwhile pursuit of happiness. I'm not saying that all poor people are unhappy, but many are.

We do have this right to pursue our happiness, but we need to have some sort of feeling that we might make it. When we lose this hope we are not happy.

That's all I'm saying.

Don't worry so much, in this medium we don't always come across the way we think we do. I just like a good debate and keeping it clean. Our ideas can stand on their own. I don't want to bully my ideas onto others. What I really want is everyone to raise up their levels of awareness.

My postings here, and yours, and everyone else help me understand more and clarify my own thinking. We have to get ourselves out of these stifling narratives we get playing through our heads sometimes and find the truth we're trying to ignore. We all do it or we would be lying. We have to control it.



..................................................Good Luck!



[-] 1 points by frontierteg (137) from Kalamazoo Township, MI 8 years ago

well said

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thank you frontierteg! Enjoy!

[-] 1 points by rickMoss (435) 8 years ago

Exactly! If we want a better future, we better get our heads out of our behinds! We need a better plan of attack.

It's time!

The Revolution has started - Read “Common Sense 3.1” at ( www.revolution2.osixs.org )

FIGHT THE CAUSE - NOT THE SYMPTOM

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Common Sense (1776), that reminds of that pamphlet Thomas Paine wrote of the same name. It advocated colonial America's independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain coincidentally.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, how did I know that. I went to the web site after my above post. Good idea, and very idealistic as a matter of fact.

I think what you need to realize is Thomas Jefferson as one the founding fathers, of which even Thomas Paine was surely a part, all realized along with the others that a representative form of government was Realistically the only one that could work. Were they right ?

Do really think suddenly all citizens in this country are going to become educated enough to understand all these different types and kinds of governments ?

Ever hear that expression, the mob rules. Mobs of people all in concert together hang innocent people for blood lust. That's democratic, is that ok ?

The long and short. Let some reality sink into that Idealism a little bit more. When your lucky just to get half, yes only half, and it ain't no cup either, of these smart Americans out to vote, how can you expect to increase their participation 1000x to be able informed decisions that will affect all of us profoundly.

I really don't see it. Not only that, but you really don't have to look far to recognize that ignorance is blissful for some in this country, and for others ignorance is just an easier road to travel then the one speak of. Sounds like we all might need to take some classes on Government 101 just for starters

I'm engineer, BSEE, and when I went to school there were many wannabes that dropped by the wayside. Many more than half. Many more. There is a shortage of EEs right now in this country. But if you wanna be one. You got to pay the price. Some people, by no fault of their own, (we all fall short, one way or the other) , just can't make it as an engineer period. I graduated with honors.

Anyway, I know what truth is, it's very hard work. Some of us have knack for it while others just do not. I design circuits for a living so my truth is hitting road continuously. I test my theory. I know when I have a reliable circuit but I only know this after splitting many hairs, running simulations, and building prototypes. And test test test under every condition that the application demands. Thoroughly.

My ideas are only good when they are proven over and over again, and do in the real world exactly what the design criteria dictated. No magic. These circuits perform a highly defined task that is easily evaluated for it's completeness. Like the computer in front of you, you know whether it works or not, it's function is easily understood. But how long until it breaks is unknown and then becomes a matter for statistics.

Good luck with that. It's a good start. But, personally, I don't see us moving away from a representative government anytime soon.

[-] 1 points by PeoplehaveDNA (305) 8 years ago

They don't want you to have a job, they don't want a middle class either, they want rich or poor in America. A plutocracy is what they want. They are full of shit about not creating jobs, they can and dont want to. They will always use the excuses such as European crisis, supply and demand, etc. But it comes down to one thing they can now get profits over seas in foreign banks, with foreign workers so their allegiance with this country has wained tremendously. They don't give a shit period about you or I or the American Dream.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree. By their actions and the very reality in which we now live, they clearly put money before people consistently. They show no compassion to fellow citizens. That money moves them more than anything, for some I'm sure it's even better than sex, drugs, and rock & roll. Ultimately, the money can buy that anyway with chump change.


In the money state of mind, it's anything and everything, all together there as infinite possibilities between the two extremes.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

The jobs are in China and other places because the American unions charged such a high wage. Really, you must blame the unions for jobs leaving America. If you are in business, it's a no brainer. Otherwise, you just cannot compete. The number goal of a business is to make money, not lose money or break even.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Oh I get it, you want American workers to compete Chinese slave labor.

You put the money before people.

It's just all about the money for you, nothing more, nothing less. : (

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

No man, you missed my point. Because of the unions in America, wages are a lot more for making stuff like cars and clothes and everything. The only way the jobs will come back is if we get rid of the unions and make things more affordable. American union made clothes cost a ton more than China stuff. But this is really a moot point because the unions will be gone soon in America. Then maybe we can turn it around!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, that's where I see the exaggeration. Unions were much much stronger decades ago. It was back then that working conditions started to improve as things like 40 hour work week, paid vacations, employee health plans, sick pay, premiums for working OT, and holiday pay became typical. These things would never have happened without them.

And, right around the turn of the 20th century work conditions were appalling, Pres. Teddy Roosevelt went after those monopolies that were slave driving Americans with a vengeance. Broke them up with that big stick !!! He was truly a president cared about us with a passion. He saved/started our beautiful national park system from those ruthless savage greedy capitalists who wanted to mow down these beautiful forest lands. Yellowstone, Yosemite, Grand Canyon.

Everything for a buck. The unions changed that. But unionized workers only account for 10% of the workforce today. The old worn narrative that it's the unions that screwed it all up is not only a lie, but a heavy narrative that the conservatives yelp 24/7.

It is true as many confirm, if you repeat a lie often and long enough, you will begin to believe. It's your narrative and it's in your head. If you think you are just on top of the truth all the time and never have fact check, research, or do some study on a subject, to really know the truth. Your just listening that narrative in your head.


Isn't just wonderful to be right all the time. Blissful.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

The unions did wonderful things in America in the past. This is true. But today unions are just not the same. The things they produce cost way more than non union. That is not a lie. My Wife can go shop for a nice top and a union made top costs about $56.00. A shirt made in China can cost $26.00. The city I live in is getting ready to do some huge projects. The unions wanted to do all the work at a very high cost. It went to a vote for open bidding and the people won. The unions must compete. They will not because they want way too much money. That is not a lie. When you are in a union part of your dues goes to Liberal politicians . You have no say in the matter. I was in a federal union for a year and during vote time my mailbox was filled with liberal voting guides from the union. That is not a lie. One of the things the OWS wants is for the super rich to stop giving to politicians. Yet the unions do it every day by the millions. What is the difference. This is not a lie. Do your homework.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Lotsa fixation on having American Workers competing with the Chinese. It's all about the numbers, the money. It's set off as the greed for profits over people.

What about India, they have cheaper software engineers. They help displac American workers And, what of of Mexico (NAFTA agreement) they take a bunch jobs that Americans can't do cheaper. Almost 1 million.

So, audiman, when we all get to the bottom, I guess everything will be cheap, including US. (Demand will dry up, and the rich will slow down, but they will have made stashes by then) Win-Win for them.

I guess that's the problem, Americans just aren't cheap enough. We need to be cheaper. Well, guess your right, we should be sending our jobs to whatever country can lower bid us. Sold to the lowest bidder.

Your right, the unions will NOT go for paying our workers $2 per hour. You have eliminate them the Unions so the workers have no power, no say. Then if those Americans won't work for $2/hour we will ship the jobs overseas and chalk it up as those lazy Americans just aren't hard workers anymore.

Just keep adding/subtracting you'll get there. The bottom

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

I'm sorry. There is kind of no hope right now. When I was a kid, The US made everything. I grew up in the LA basin and there were factories everywhere. We made everything from CO CO mats to dustpans. Everything. Then Japan started to make stuff but not like China. The stuff from Japan started to get really good. But they did not make everything. China does. The thing is there are millions of them. In India also. Many of these folks live a zillion miles from nowhere and come down to the towns to work in the factories.. They work for very little but very little is more than they ever had. They are buying cars like we did in America 70 years ago. Very strange. The American Government let this happen. Now that they make everything...it is kind of too late. There are a few things that America still makes that are still known as the best. Instruments. Martin, Gibson, Fender and many small shops. They are still thought to be the best of the best and in demand all over the world. I forgot about Taylor guitars. Made in San Diego. Fantastic. So all is not lost. Some things may help, New laws were just passed made to make Chinese goods cost way more. Maybe we can make dustpans again. It's not my fault that China makes everything. But why would folks buy a $15.00 dustpan when they can buy a fine one for $5.00 at Wal-Mart. Times are tough, folks cannot buy the American stuff anymore for a much higher price. Look in your own house. Most stuff is made somewhere else. Start with your flatscreen TV. Then on to your computer. Then the printer. Then the cabinet the TV sits on. And so on. The new jobs in America are hi tech jobs. But you need a lot of math. Most of the good ol factory jobs are lost forever.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We're going into the future which will require more OJT for those who never make it in the school environment. We just have to adapt to these changing times. Your right low tech manual laborous really are gone. Reason - this stuff won't even go to China anymore, it will go to machines, intelligent ones. That's the future.

We need to train people for a different kind of work. I think we can become a world leader in the new technologies that are rapidly emerging. As an EE if my work is out-sourced and I can't ifnd work that pays six figures. Then yes, it's over, this American dream is a nightmare. I worked extremely hard to get where I am and if that doesn't cut it, we are truly screwed, all of us !

I still hold hope that we can stop the race to the bottom. And they won't outsource me since they could probably hire 5 Chinese engineers to replace me. But none as good as me. When they get to me and do this, I will likely leave this country to retire. Done. If that helps the rich then they'll be happy, problem solved. I will not spend one thin dime of my money here. I'm outta here.

SEEEEEEEEEE YAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

I can't blame you but I think your job is safe because we still need folks like you. That are here! The problem of all the little factories going away in America is that there is no place for the uneducated person to work any more. When I was a kid a guy could get a job at the aircraft and make planes and parts with just high school. Or he could make brooms and dustpans in LA somewhere. And support his family. All those jobs are gone. And not everyone is a tech guy so we are in real trouble because all that is left for the millions of un scooled folks is min wage jobs. For those folks to get ahead they must be the best of the best. Something to think about, it things get bad here with your job you could always go abroad and find work. Teachers are doing it right now.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think the thing is we have train people OJT to gain these higher level skills. I think it is possible but we have to be creative. It's not a one day training course for some simple Simon job. They have to develop higher level skills and the OJT training has to be more involved than ever before.

We have to collectively raise all of us up to a new level unlike anything we saw in the past.

[-] 1 points by audiman (90) 8 years ago

True but some folks will only be able to smack car doors on. That is it. It is those folks that are in trouble. In the past, there was always jobs for them. Now, they are all gone to China.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, well, this is a good point. I think really something would have to be done in these cases. This also would be perhaps the biggest challenge to meet. I run across this in my designs in the aspect that I must make a product which is user friendly. ANd that, many times, is the biggest challenge in a design. And then you may only achieve a certain level of user friendliness. In the end the world is imperfect, and perfection is just an idea we don't see anywhere in the world.

This is where we don't shy away from the problem. we solve it. Personally, I'm one of those who sees that 99.999% of us are really good people in our core. We get mis-lead, mis-guided, and sometimes we're just plain ignorant and do strange things. But most of us respond well to others who care about us and under the spell of good direction we can make ourselves better day by day. It can be done and we should do it because we are truly the one and the many. We all deserve better than what we've been getting.

This generation wakes UP!!!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by tomcat68 (298) 8 years ago

lol, i dunno. let's just tax the fuk outta businesses here, and see how many more china jobs we can create. and Reaganomics worked awesome, takes time but most Dems don't understand that. spiked at its best just after slick willy danced into office. and of course took credit for what a great economy. magically just was like that cause a Clinton took office right? lmao. evry time hard work and pinching every penny (called conservatism) pays off some liberal dumbocrat walks in to fuk it up. is why we will never recover. This country is too damn stupid to remember, after 4 - 8 years, what its like to have a Dem in the chair.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Man, that narrative has got your head spinning.

Care for some kooolaide with that narrative you hyped up on?

[-] 1 points by din365 (36) 8 years ago

They all went to china. PERIOD!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Because the greedy bastards make money by sending them to China!

[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 8 years ago

The point is... the rich are not job creators. The main job of any major corporation is to maximize profits and to do so, minimize all costs. Labor is one of its biggest costs. The rich being called job creators is basically the brain washing being done by the 1% on the rest of the people in order to let them get away with making more money and not paying their share into the communal piggy bank...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Right ON stephenadler, I agree totally, especially the brainwashing part.

We have to get this GREED in check. We are people not money, and those Casino Players on Wall Street are not playing with chips, it's US.

We will not be scammed again and we are paying attention and we will paying even attention as the days go forward.

The Casino Game is OVER!!!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by stephenadler (118) 8 years ago

It's up to us to protect ourselves from these casino players. We need to think out side the box to bring a stop to this.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago


..........................................Absolutely!!!



[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

There are also pure economic flaws with the theory. Beyond the moral and ethical questions about wealth distribution, trickle down economics is an inefficient system. Our economy is 70% consumer based. When you fleace the working class and minimize there income you destroy the economy.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, demand is what creates jobs.

Also, we have to stop trying to make American workers compete with Chinese workers.

This outsourcing mania has got to end!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by LobbyDemocracy (615) 8 years ago

No prob puzzlin.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 8 years ago

The rich are not the jobs creators, they are the money hoarders.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly, GreedKills.

Greed is an innate characteristic of all humans. We want it all and we can't stop until we have it. But, our cultures discipline us to control ourselves, and to think of others.

The greedy wall streeters played the stock market like it was a casino game that promised great huge winnings! ALL at the expense of the 99%ers as everything had to be sacrificed for that bigger profit margin, even along with our jobs. Whatever it takes. Just get those chips!

In many ways GREED is killing US. But we're waking up fast!

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by jjpatrick (195) 8 years ago

They're in Washington.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

................We Are The 99% - We Are The 99%..........................


[-] 1 points by liberybell (49) 8 years ago

Very well said brother!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

My Pleasure, Thanks!

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 8 years ago

Did anyone see THAT letter from a Wall Street worker? Here's my response: http://www.tocamu.com/?page_id=5665

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very interesting letter. I understand why you responded as you did. The wall streeter, if he/she is really one, was totally off-base.

By the way my 401K never doubled every three years, not even close. It was either an outright exaggeration or we just pulled the curtain to see the wizard.

I suspect this so-called wall streeter is not a wall street guru really, but rather a liar. It's just doesn't really follow they would talk like this. You found many inconsistencies that would tend to prove this. I think it was ploy to make this "wall streeter" label carry more clout and get listened to as they appealed to their authority as an insider.

I think there's many folks out there trying to throw rocks at the movement and they won't stop at anything to try and find bigger rocks.

We always can learn from these confrontations and that's the good part. But their narrative is many times too strong so they won't entertian new ideas even if they are obviously wrong.

Great job with your response by the way. We are together on this and these diversionary tactics they use against won't work.

This is the beauty of a democratic movement without set leaders. They can't figure out how to take us down, because they can't. With strong leaders, you take down the leader, movement over. The movement is all of us. And we ain't going no where.

Thanks!!!

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply - I wondered whether the letter was genuine but in case it is, I felt it needed answering.

Interesting point you make about our movement without set leaders... I worked in the social justice/wellbeing field for a decade and a thought keeps coming back to me. If you boil down all the grievances, it seems to me this thing is about how we all treat each other. Remember the Peace Sign and how it polarised opinion in the 70s? Well I'm thinking that the "movement" would be stronger if it united behind a new symbol that captured the zeitgeist. An "umbrella" symbol that took us all under its wing but at its core carried a wellbeing message - because people with good wellbeing think and act differently, which has major social, economic and political relevance.

I'm in the UK and it's getting late so I'm off for some shut eye... but maybe have a look at my website tocamu.com. I'm wondering whether there's a fit with what I've been doing and the movement's aims - cos a united front will always be more effective and if it's a loosely joined amorphous multi-celled entity, you'll never be able to destroy it... but linked by a common symbol, it will have identity.

Be interested in your thoughts on this Puzzling. Bye for now...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It going to be an interesting ride. I think we have very useful resources at our disposal that will allow this movement succeed.

We have to become Truth Seekers. And our own worse critics. Essentially boiling this one down, we need as critical thinkers as possible so when the media talks to us they get an ear full. As Thomas Jefferson said, and knew all so well. Knowledge IS Power.

In the information age, we are all shoe ins, we have it at our fingertips.

This Universe is a very interesting puzzle to me. I enjoy the process of unraveling it. The mystery that surrounds us can be known and as we gravitate towards the Truth the beauty unfolds before us.

The ticket for this ride is our effort in puzzle solving. It's an endless pursuit, but the beauty that lies ahead is always worth the effort.

Common symbol is a great idea by the way. There is a wonderful chord that got played there and that may appear in our future. There are many right now as you know. Personally I think the Guy Fawkes mask is the best since it symbolizes that movement is all of us. It's beautiful in that it really does harmonize with each of us. Very Powerful.

But then again, the peace symbol is great too, that one is timelessly relevant. I think most want peace, but in practice, it's a struggle. Some day, it may actually happen so we have to keep on our mind.

By the way, I first learned of the Guy Fawkes story on a trip to the UK about 16 yrs ago. I was told about Guy Fawkes Day. It seemed interesting trivia at the time. How ironic that here we are now, and this fellow, Guy Fawkes, has this significance to us Americans as well now. When I saw the movie V for Vendetta, it really give me a whole different view on the whole story. I remember seeing the movie when it was released in the theaters.

See ya on the flip side.......

[-] 1 points by nsd72 (31) 8 years ago

Yes... the status quo is going to unravel little by little. The financial system is on the brink anyway and the important thing is that there's something in place to fill the void. I've spend a couple of days at occupy London and only four or 5 people were wearing the Guy Fawkes mask - they were from Anonymous. It's a powerful mask though... Look after yourself!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Teacher (469) 8 years ago

Just a way of justigying a return to regressive tax rates. You can't have a slogan that says "the rich need more yachts"

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, that is the surreal side of it, those yachts. The ultimate symbol of their excess, which was paid for by Chinese labor.


The greedy in this country are going to get a welcome call soon.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

They are not going to create jobs until all of us live in poverty. They are aiming for one global government so they can control the world

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

This would be the scenario where the rich get filthy richer and richer until your right we all become poor, then demand will drop precipitously. That's exactly the cycle we're in unless we break it and balance it back out. It really equates to the rich getting a big irresistible boost of money by selling but long term they'll lose and so will we. Except they can still survive nicely they just have give up a little. For rest of us, we being the poor, we will live in a world that somehow scammed itself out a future.

Save the planet from global warming and pollution, hell, we can't even save ourselves from ourselves yet. We have to keep dreaming and hoping. It's a coping mechanism.

[-] 1 points by barb (835) 8 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ditto!


========================================================================================= Thanks!

[-] 1 points by packetStorm (128) 8 years ago

1.3 billion Chinese need jobs too ... if OWS is global ... then Americans are the 1%.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

What we need is an investment in our workers so we can adapt to the technological revolution which is manifesting here as you read this because we are all connected to each other through this medium which is literally at our fingertips.

EMPOWERMENT. We need to go to next level Together!!!

We have a infinite amount of information at any given moment at these fingertips, since we can not predict it, but we search for it, just as we think of it, always in the future.

The mystery that surrounds us is awakening in us ways we are yet to realize but we can begin to imagine it. It is upon us now and we now have intelligent systems to assist us in pursuing all our dreams of a better "world". These new systems will aide us doing away with redundant meaningless tasks we do now, freeing our minds to ponder higher thoughts, and chase our dreams, I mean really. VR anyone?

For those who still like WORK so much they can do it. Some, although not many, see WORK as fun and something to pursue. I'm one of those since I'm an EE with years of fun design experience. Take away the deadlines and it would be a blast for me. I love to experiment with electricity.

Look we are really dreamers in our hearts. We are in a revolution because this technology is becoming abundant. We already machines building machines. AI will have the adaptive ability, just like we have, to solve higher level problems which will allow further automation pushing us to a higher level relationship to work

Back to the point, we need educate ourselves even more and raise, all of us, collectively, to enter A NEW PARADIGM SHIFT.

(At an extremely accelerated rate : )

It's here, your reading this, we haven't realized all this quite yet. That's fine.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

What you do is of little significance, but it is very important that you do it.

Mahatma Gandhi

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Do it because it's right!

[-] 1 points by L3employee (63) 8 years ago

To misquote John Lennon: "I've had free markets, from Reagan to Bush."

None of the 250k plus types that I was around in the '80s, or in the George II years were rubbing their hands together & saying: "Oh boy! I got a tax break! I'm gonna create some jobs!", more like: "Oh boy! I got a tax break! I Can trade the BMW for a Mercedes!".

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

No doubt. It certainly didn't create those jobs they promised when they handed out those tax cuts.

We know what it was about: .....GREEEEED

[-] 1 points by qwiksilver (46) from Los Angeles, CA 8 years ago

The rich are not job creators. That's Koolaid.

The job creators are standing in the check out line at Wal-mart, next to you at Starbucks, are part of the traffic jam you are sitting in....

....in otherwords...us.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

That it is, absolutely. It just seems almost unfathomable how we ever bought into the rich are job creators myth.



We are waking UP!

Thanks for your help!

[-] 1 points by HappyLove (143) 8 years ago

Give a 1000 dollar to a rich person and it will be put on a bank to stew.

Give it to an average person and it will be used to buy things and so create more jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So true, so true. That's exactly what is holding this economy back. The 99% are hurting too much to spend.

Thanks for the post!

[-] 1 points by requiem4usa (2) 8 years ago

check out this video with chomsky that deals with some of these issues. Requiem for the American Dream http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YrvlZn8sEo

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Requiem4usa,

Thank you very much. Good Video.

I suggest everyone watch it. It's the truth.

[-] 1 points by rin1 (123) 8 years ago

http://knockknockrevolution.tumblr.com/post/11573860774/why-occupy-wall-street-flyers please give these out to non occupiers to convert them!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Ok, coooool green. I like it, good job!!!

And, I will, thanks!!! : )

[-] 1 points by rin1 (123) 8 years ago

thnx!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not a problem!

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago
  1. We will have to wait for the entire globalization effort to fail in order to get jobs back in US..It will fail due to lack of worldwide demand and the soon to be realized fact that our country's lack of a manufacturing base is a National Security Issue.

  2. Why wait...Revolt now.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We need people to wake up & become aware.

Too many in our society are ignorant of how our country is being sold out from underneath us.

We have to get back the dream.

[-] 1 points by nickhowdy (1104) 8 years ago

Hey I just want a reality based existence with a government that actually serves the people..I'll work on the rest. People are slowly getting it...I was pleasantly surprised by how quickly OWS grew.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I with you on that one.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

They already pay for the roads and bridges they drive on through the gas tax and for public education through property taxes.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think we're talking about the rich paying their fair share. They have enjoyed their windfall, now pay up. The roads are crumbling and many bridges will collapse without being retrofitted or replaced.

So, it's not already done. It needs to be done.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

Wasn't Obama's stimulus supposed to fix roads and bridges?

Where did all that money go?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Here:


In the past 18 months, Obama's Department of Transportation has committed $38.6 billion to more than 14,600 projects, and the vast majority of them are under way. About 70% of the money is going to highways; the rest is mostly for subways, buses, light rail and other transit projects, plus more than a billion dollars for Amtrak and a similar amount for airports.


[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

am track? really? why do they get a subsidy and not other rail roads?

do you think the rich need to pay their "fare share" if all of this is already under way?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It's likely because Amtrak serves close to 30 million passengers per year all across the USA. Also, I think they are the largest railway passenger service bar none. It was back in the days President Nixon when they decided to save the railroad passenger train business as the big railroads at the time were going under like Pullman, Penn Central. Amtrak is part of the USA infrastructure.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

It just makes me wonder if it is the best way to allocate funds, considering they lose about $32 per passenger. $32 x 30 million is a lot of money.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, because it is infrastructure. And it helps us compete in the Global Economy.

We have got to stop this race to bottom.

Beardy, the bargain basement deals aren't at the bottom, it's us and our way of life.

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

Glad it is working out for you. I have never ridden a train and there are none near by even if I wanted to.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not a problem. I have rode the Marta, the train system up in DC, it's actually a very good way to get around National Mall, museums, monuments, etc.., I think with a ridership of 30 million people there are plenty of folks taking advantage of the system. I heard it's quite inexpensive. Anyway, I've never rode Amtrak so I can't speak to that either.

Thanks for the post!

[-] 1 points by beardy (282) 8 years ago

Maybe it is just amtrack that is failing. A $32 subsidy per passenger is definitely a sign that it is not being utilized to its fullest potential.

In my state, a lot of the gas tax pays for light rail and bike paths and then we are told there isn't enough to fix roads. I think that is a huge problem.

Also, as someone who works in the airline industry, I have nothing against other forms of travel, but I do have a problem with the government choosing winners of different forms of travel. Obviously, I'd rather not have my industry shutdown and be forced to find employment else where, but I am sure my colleagues who work on the rail road would say the same thing.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You have a point but I think what is happening is this transportation is being made available for those who can't afford air travel. If it were allowed to die, which Nixon decided to save, it kept this mode transportation there for those otherwise wouldn't be able to travel.

Good debate. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Another helpful link:

THE GREATEST OWS PROTEST SIGN EVER

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/10/the-greatest-ows-protest-sign-ever/

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

OWS Is Winning, We Are Bringing Positive Real Change To the World


[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Job Creation - Job Creation - Job Creation - Job Creation - Job Creation - Job Creation

When goods are not in great demand by consumers and less competition is present among producers, prices of goods drop and manufacturers, during this time, either go out of business or begin to produce other goods. Consumers ultimately buy the goods which are produced and if this demand goes up the manufacturer hires more to make more. Consumers create jobs when they spend.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

With all the evidence that the rich don't create jobs but rather it's consumer demand, then, why do so many elected representatives — mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans — persist in championing more and larger tax cuts for the Rich as the panacea to guarantee national prosperity?


[-] 1 points by ramous (765) from Wabash, IN 8 years ago

China. the jobs are in china. Because we don't want to pay american prices for goods, we want them cheap. Bring back companies to america!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly, this where the biggest reform has to be made. We currently have a structure in place that's sole goal is a race to the bottom to maximize profits.

It's the greed for MONEY that fuels this fire!

Our government has stopped serving the interests of people and has instead replaced it with money. We bought the BS about our wealthy friends (the 1%), the job creators, and elected representatives that would adhere to this twisted philosophy.

Those representatives and their wealthy friends that helped them get elected convinced us that we would also benefit from this cozy relationship. WIN-WIN

Now, we can no longer endure the consequences of being fed lies 24/7, our reality in which we now find ourselves is all the evidence we need to realize these myths we were just that MYTHS.

The undeniable TRUTH, the rich are richer, and the 99%, hang on to your hat, and don't get sick. Some of us have already felt those rocks at the bottom. This deal as we ALL know was really WIN-LOSE.

This movement is growing and we are now a force to contend with!

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 8 years ago

the only thing worse than thinking rich people create jobs is thinking that the government does.

[-] 1 points by gmoneygross (205) from Brooklyn, NY 8 years ago

Who said we are trying to create jobs with tax cuts? I've never heard that in my life, and I highly doubt that you can find any context demonstrating such. The purpose of the tax cut is to prevent money from being thrown away, much like it has been since Obama has taken office.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Maybe it was the repugs that said tax cuts for the rich create jobs.

So, if the tax cut prevents money from being thrown away, then the only money we have is tax cuts, since the rest is thrown away, correct?

[-] 1 points by radical22 (113) 8 years ago

because that was always a BS Dogma

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Cha-Ching.

They repeat the lie over and over, then it's easy to think it must be true.

I'm a rarity in that I remain skeptical of any new information until I've vetted it to my satisfaction. One source is never enough. I am a truth seeker taking nothing for granite.

Dogma restrains people's freedom so cleverly they just don't realize it.

[-] 1 points by radical22 (113) 8 years ago

Here's another BS Dogma, "Why do you want to punish success?" This assumes all successful people obtained their wealth honestly. Which is total BS. Answer- Nobody wants to punish legitimate success. Nobody is occupying Apple Headquarters, etc. Only success from ill-gotten gains should be punished. Unfortunately in our society, ill-gotten gains are rewarded.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Also, true, in pure capitalism greed is always rewarded. Caring about your workers and trying to pay a living wage to them would be punished since that costs more. Reduce costs and grow profits doing whatever it takes.

[-] 1 points by proudhon (3) 8 years ago

The Rich are making money whether US citizens have jobs or not. In fact the more money they can make by employing less people the better their profits.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly, the rich really don't ever have to suffer like the rest of us during economic downturns. In fact, many times the republicans go out with their battle cry that we have to give further tax breaks to them since they are the job creators. Which their NOT. I think this thread has extinguished that lie.

The ONLY suffering they'll have is profits are down, instead of 10 million in the bank, they got 9 mill, oh, cry me a river.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

JOB CREATOR MYTHOLOGY


This wholesale substitution of "job creator" for "rich" is designed to linguistically codify the prime principle of trickle-down economics.

If you lie long enough, and repeat the same lies over and over, it's human nature to start believing it's true. Advertisers use this tactic constantly.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Job Creator

the process of providing new jobs, especially for people who are unemployed

A very article on this job creator myth. I highly recommend it.

http://www.eastfieldnews.com/news/job-creation-or-profit-inflation-1.2655020#.TqveenKYErg

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

link up.....................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

With all the evidence that the rich don't create jobs but rather it's consumer demand, then, why do so many elected representatives — mostly, but not exclusively, Republicans — persist in championing more and larger tax cuts for the Rich as the panacea to guarantee national prosperity?

[-] 1 points by vats (107) 8 years ago

Yes rich are getting richer by out sourcing to india, china, all jobs being created by the wealthy in America

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It's an outsourcing bonanza. I agree! This is where we need change. These corporations can no longer be rewarded for sending our jobs overseas.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Now they have come to the place where their faith can no longer feed on the bread of repression and violence. They ask for the bread of liberty, of public equality, and public responsibility. It must not be denied them.


Mordecai Wyatt Johnson

[-] 1 points by LSN45 (535) 8 years ago

The term "Job Creator" has only recently been introduced into the dialogue in an effort to re-brand the 1% as a good thing in the eyes of Americans. (they used to be called employers). Don't believe them, they like things the way they are. What we need is some real campaign finance reform. It should be THE main goal of the protests. We need to get the money out of our politics.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree completely. The money in politics sows the greed that continues devouring our planet and way of life.

Pure unbridled capitalism will destroy everything we've worked so hard for.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 8 years ago

your last paragraph almost sounds like it was written by Elizabeth Warren - America's best politician.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thank you. I have a ton of respect for her. She really is on our side. She really does care and will fight along side US to get our country back.

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 8 years ago

What is an unfunded tax cut? The assumption behind that ridiculous term is that there is either a natural tax rate that sedate below or that all income belongs to the state. Both are false

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

An unfunded tax cut is the same as a tax hike. Bush gave these unfunded tax cuts to the rich, which means they weren't paid for. Instead they go directly into our deficit. Now they want to cut programs for the middle to pay for that deficit.

In other words, we the 99%, we got screwed again.

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 8 years ago

Well not really. Good talking point recall, but has nothing to do with my poiny

[-] 1 points by golfrock (3) from Albuquerque, NM 8 years ago

This is what the Rep. scum get repeating. Their idea is, "if you say enough times, people will believe it." Especially when it is a LIE!!!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

golfrock, it is very psychological, but it's a proven method and works very well.

Commercials on television are like that, we hear them so much that they get inside our mind, and connects with our impulsive buying habits.

In fact, those ads cost big bucks, and they know it works so they gladly pay. Just a quick example would be song that plays during the ad will influence you in how you think of the brand.

Fox News does this through their narrative. They keep that narrative tight across all the shows just for the reason, you hear over and over. From her, from him, from them, from some people, they all say it, Must be true.

Our minds, intrinsically, work on a narrative, it's there because of the survival instinct. (We can be stubborn can't we.. : )

Interesting.............................

[-] 1 points by metapolitik (1110) 8 years ago

Ain't that the truth...

[-] 1 points by TrueNorth (2) 8 years ago

At the very least, the lack of jobs and the insecurity of the capitalist marketplace is why we need a social welfare safety met. Problem is, businesses want it both ways. They want to gamble, but with your life not theirs. The first to lose aren't businesses. It is the people they employ.

[-] 1 points by TrueNorth (2) 8 years ago

When the dot com bubble burst, there weren't too many jobs. Who created that mess?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Essentially, it's the Wall Street Casino Game again. The dot com stocks got way over-inflated, and then someone sneezed, and it fell in.

This game is fueled by GREED. Quick riches.

The year they tanked (2000) they had just doubled from the previous year.

Greed is always the ingredient that gets these things going. Just like this last go round, some really shrewd investors pulled out just before the fatal fall cashing in big big big time...................

They still don't want to be regulated. We know why.

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 8 years ago

The rich are job creators, but that statement doesn't say where they are created. Investments do create jobs, but instead of creating jobs in US they are created in China, India and elsewhere. FoxConn the maker of many of of our computers, mobile phones and other electronic devices employs 900 thousand people. People that work under such terrible conditions that they had to install suicide prevention measures.

Is this to blame on the richest 1%? Well only partially, because in the end it was Congress that passed legislation that forced corporations to go abroad. Not doing so would mean bankruptcy.

Of course that same legislation was heavily promoted by those same business entities that saw themselves forced to go abroad, hence the partial blame.

Yet, it was eventually a political decisions to agree to global free trade that caused the down turn of both the American and the European economy for the interests of businesses that operate globally. Businesses that have no loyalty to a nation and don't care about the general welfare of the population.

This down turn, which started in the 1980's, was exacerbated in the 1990's, by such treaties as NAFTA and GATT only to be postponed by a massive build up of credit both at the private and at the public level.

It's not only the poor that have debt, it's not the nation that has debt, even the richest 1% have a debt, exceeding $600 billion.

Global free trade is an anachronism of post World War II thinking, when in the minds of the leaders of the Western World, the globe only existed of the Western World. China was a closed market, Russia was a closed marked, India was a closed market, but by the end of the 1980's all that was changed, yet we kept pursuing the global free trade agenda as if nothing had changed. As if we could just add billions of people to the market place without any effect on the stability prosperity and well-being of our nations.

So let's not try to be smug and deny that investors create jobs, because they do, but let's ask ourselves if the jobs created make out lives better, more prosperous and more worthwhile to live.

Unfortunately the answer to that, I believe is negative.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

And, finally, this future that we are driving into, so cleverly, is essentially a race to the bottom.

So we have to shift our thinking become smarter.

We are the most educated population in this country ever. Some have already realized that college ED is almost necessity and I also missed taking the "bullet" by getting a college ed. I got a BSEE.

But I also had the experience while I was I getting it, that not all people who wanted this degree were going to get it. Actually much less than half don't. It was a ball buster but if you got it. You got your first ticket.

But, now, I realize that without that, I would surely be screwed right now. And I have experienced lay-offs from the big military contractors many times, it sucks. My income drops like rock even with UI. So, I know how it is to be OUT, and sinking fast. It was 1992, I took a hard hit, the layoffs were far and wide in the military sector. Space Industry. It was partly the draw down after Gulf I.

There was a big demand for military aerospace circuits during the Reagan years which was great for a beginning engineer. High-Rel. I have enjoyed electronics and it's rewarded me well. Many of the circuits went into satellites. Cool stuff.

But, we have to work for everyone. The new jobs in the future will require new skills. So, this shift in thinking has to address the problem of employing workers who will require training to bring them up to speed.

Ultimately, we must be creative and find a new goal that will excite the markets and also find a way to make everyone employable.

The technology and Science is right there in front of us. We could enter the Golden Age of AI intelligent machines that make everything we need to live well and more. We will have learned how to take all the labor out of daily living. Thinking, but not just thinking, Thinking on levels we have not yet realized we be valued. Not whether you can dig a good ditch or clean your toilet.

Basically, manual labor will be of even less value than it is now. Intelligent machines will do it with little help from us. We will command them.....My electronic circuit is already made this way. It is a fine science, intelligent.

Think of this like going from the abacus to the calculator.

This stuff is already here, just not in a big way, Yet........

Some are talking to their cars though....... : )

[-] 1 points by NielsH (212) 8 years ago

None of your clever thinking will help us one bit if we don't have the legislation to restrain predatory business practices.

A lot of talent will be wasted unless we get a grip on the situation and make the economy work at the interest of the common welfare and not be a slave to GDP.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I agree. We need a reversal of what has put this country on a razor edge.

The Wall Street Casino Game needs to be stopped. Regulations put in place.

Also, we need stop outsourcing all our jobs. We beginning to outsource engineers already. I'm not going to be an alarmist, and I hope we will continue to need engineers in America. We aren't graduating enough but we still graduate the best engineers in the world. We are still the best and I will contribute to that.

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

in china

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The labor cost can't be beat. For simple "unthinking" type work, they work for the least $$$.

We need a new kind of economy as these manual labor jobs not only go overseas but go away when AI machines do this stuff.

The first robots in homes will be maids, but extremely smart maids that speak to us and understand with a memory that is crystal clear. And as they improve they will be able to do that which we could have done but, well, let's just say, we won't have to do those things we never really like to in the first place.

Unless, it sounds cool to spend your entire day hand washing your clothes, scrubbing & cleaning the toilet, taking out the trash, vacuuming the carpet, hand washing your dishes, dusting, cleaning the windows, ironing your clothes, putting away your clothes, and so on, and, then we wonder why our day went so fast because we were so busy.

Pursuit of happiness : )

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

Corporation given the latest machines technolgy to china to make all types of item .

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 8 years ago

'Rich are Job Creators' was intended to Fool the masses into thinking.. If we went after them (1%). we would be Worse off.

.... Like Reaganomics. . 'Trickle Down Theory'.. All of it Spin Garbage.

.. The Wealthy dont create anything, they STEAL it, and Keep it!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Marlow, right on the greedy money. This tragic experiment is over. Trickle down did nothing more than make the rich richer and the poor poorer. It's true and verifiable. It's simple addition and subtraction. Until we get the right change we are being subtracted at an ever increasing rate.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 8 years ago

Good Morning!.. and TY 'Puzzlin'...

Just read the results of the Poll from last week.. Interesting how the results came up.. Nearly 100% of the Protestors 'Actually' represent the 99%!... How much proof do we need that #ows is Successful.. and will continue until we Can walk away with satisfaction!?

[-] 1 points by JamesS89118 (646) from Las Vegas, NV 8 years ago

Jobs are obsolete. It takes 100 workers to build a $20,000 car, 15 people to run a trillion dollar Hedge fund. Stop taxing the workers, and tax Wall St. because that's where the real money is.

Let the robots and supercomputers do the work, and tax Hedge funds. BTW, taxing Hedge funds does NOT raise prices, unless you by Hedge funds of course. lol :)

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

James, right on!

This why when I get a paycheck it's for hard work designing real electronic circuits. These rich fellas can make one simple transaction and make way more than I make in a year. It's always has been true since money was invented, that money makes money.

And these people are just as human as we are. There may be some super-humans around but most are just like you and me.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

http://2onthebeat.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/first-lady-plans-fundraising-trip-to-houston/

Why not occupy some of these crazy fundraiser dinners for Obama or any other politicians ... Be loud and make them all feel uncomfortable

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Obama kept the tax cuts in place and has about 4.3 million raised just in the last couple weeks for re election ... Why are people not occupying his fund raiser events ... Can we make him and those super rich people feel uncomfortable at there thousand dollar plate meals

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Obama is on our side if we give him a push. His hands have been tied by the tea party.

They are proud to have this do nothing congress continue as the tea party crowd won't allow a jobs bill. Also, their encouraging small business to not hire because for them it's all about politics and winning at any and all costs.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

ya right Obama works for the banks ... they are all in it together ... wake up moron ... Democrats and republicans are the same ... they use division to keep us down ... thing are getting worse ... I never thought this would happen to Americans .... This is crazy look at the police state ... Obama not on the peoples side ? he works for the global bankers ... unemployment and poverty in america is growing ...

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

police state?

I've been saying for some time that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would look very nice were he attired with a hand axe, planted smack dab in the middle of his forehead -

I have not been arrested yet.

You can check back with me in a couple of hours, or tomorrow if you like.

In the meantime, I insist, you do verge on the hysterical.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Don't worry they are watching you

[-] 1 points by ZenDogTroll (13032) from South Burlington, VT 8 years ago

what? is that supposed to make me nervous?

I'm used to it.

. . . . and it's clickable . . .

If bleed we must then bleed we shall,

and upon their heads will rest that stain.

May that thread that permeates the universe

and binds us together in peace and in love

guide and protect all, and let us take great pride:

we are a secular nation. We are a progressive nation.

. . . . . . . . . We are not afraid. . . . . . . . . .

-

Those who staunchly advocate violence,

and who will not be tamed by either reason,

love of their own neighbor,

or caution on behalf of the Movement,

must be ostracized and disavowed.

z

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

cool

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very cooooool....................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

You are a troll.

I can't talk with you when you call people morons. Anyone.

It makes you a bully and name caller which is most favored tactic of the despicable troll when they flame out.

Seeeee Yaaaaaaaaaaa.

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Seeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

I troll just like you Obama and the rest of them are the problem... I don't want to have a conversation with you anyway ... You work for Obama ... When Obama came to office the Democrats had a majority ... Obama said we could all see bills that where going to be voted on. he said the wars are going to be over. he said we would fix the economy and NAFTA... What happened ... All talk no action ... It was BS ... He goes around raising millions while people are starving poverty in america grows ... and his wife and kids go traveling around Italy ... give me a break ...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I wasn't going to reply again, but I did catch a glimmer of honesty there. I give credit for that but it doesn't absolve your previous behavior. Bad behavior doesn't erase it accumulates. Typically, the pattern is so predictable that when you said,

[quote] I don't want to have a conversation with you anyway [unquote]

You came clean there. and for that, I applaud you.

For that I will probably waste my time, but anyway, I will impart some wisdom to you. Your allowing your emotion to fuel your words too much. Slow down, diffuse.

Your bothered by a maddening world just much as I am. First thing you can do is take that energy and do something positive with it. Constructive.

Use it to dig into these issues deeper. Get as many different view points as possible. Find reliable sources that don't lie (as much). And, remember, some subjects like politics are not a concise science. There's many times a compromise or a middle ground. It's not like mathematics which is a pure science and the only one.

Also, beware of the narratives that get fed to us so we don't have to think. Be skeptical at all times. And, if you hear something you haven't heard before, you have no idea whether it is true or not, until you do the work to verify.

Your greatest Ally: Evidence. Real verifiable indisputable Evidence. Seek that and there you will find the Truth. Reason is your guide!~ : )

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

Thanks for your wisdom ... lol ..."Bad behavior" ... so you are the judge of Bad behavior huh ... be a good citizen go shop and support the economy seeeeeeeeeeeee yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

We are all judges. We make judgements all the time. I just err to the side of demanding respect. It's my pet peeve. But it works very well for me by feeding my strong self-esteem. I learned this through experience and let's just say not all the experience was pleasant. But, if you learn the lesson, it's allows a bad experience turn you around to realize something good. This way your time is never wasted. But you must learn. This is the thing.

Anyway, it's cool, I wish you well. Words can lead to very positive actions.

Our constitution was put together with these words very nicely by Jefferson.

Good Luck!

[-] 1 points by skizzy (445) 8 years ago

seeeeeeeeeeeeee yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa you strong self-esteem judge of people trol ... o and welcome to the new america good luck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vg5Jft_PWCo

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thanks for the link. The police are on our side. I respect them when they do their job and don't go over the top. They put up with alot crap/flak but that is their job. They step into normal people's lives at their worse point when bad things happen. They are good people. My neighbor is a State Police Officer. Really nice guy. Actually, I'm glad he lives close and parks his cruiser out front. I do feel safe. They are us.

In my city , the Occupy Movement is thriving, and the police, and the mayor are IN Support. We are together!

Say, "Mic Check!!!".

To serve and Protect.

http://www.occupypolice.org/

[-] 1 points by TalkingHead (101) 8 years ago

Some reasons why unemployment is so high:

  1. Automation and outsourcing
  2. Too many people not making a living wage, leaving them with too little discretionary spending income
  3. We lost millions of jobs in housing, they won’t be back for a while

The obvious thing to do is try and replace the lost jobs with infrastructure and other public works spending until housing jobs come back, but that costs money and there is no political will to spend or raise taxes. Some seem to think that all the lost jobs can be replaced by the private sector alone, but with out a massive tax cut to get spending money in consumers hands I don't see it.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, I agree. A couple decades from now the only work left will be jobs that require strong critical thinkers. Manual Labor will be outsourced to Robots.

We need meaningful work for people and have figure out we can pull everybody up by their bootstraps. Intelligence is necessary and Reason is our guide. We must have a creative solution.

Thanks!

[-] 1 points by jadee (40) 8 years ago

What exactly are the Buch era tax cuts? The IRS tax data from 2008 shows the top 1% of U.S. earners pay 38% of all the federal income tax, the top top 10% pay 70%, and the top 50% pay 97% of the federal income tax.

This is according to Ralph Reiland's article Wrong Medicine for a Sick Economy.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

If 250k is rich, we are all REALLY screwed.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

Less taxes ? How about an oversea shut down on the caymans and so forth, schedule e scrutiny, more audits, et. Al.

[-] 1 points by Joyce (375) 8 years ago

And, pray tell, what defines "rich" ?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The 1% make more than 593,000 per year. That defines the 1%.

Their are also the 400 richest people in this country, they make more than the bottom 60%.

Telling, isn't it? Please check the numbers for yourself.

[-] 1 points by SoftwareEngineer (16) 8 years ago

https://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Francisco-Drivers/279959605349056

The above is a page for an app I built over the past two months. It allows anyone with a smart phone to use their car as a ride sharing vehicle (Legally you can't call it a taxi).

I think this would be one way to put the power back in the hands of the 99%. Taxi medallions cost $200k? Why? background checks don't cost that much.

I am sick of government bureaucratic bull! Even those that don't have a car can earn.

And no, I don't make a dime off this, I just built the app for people to use. The app will go live in 1 week and it will be 100% free built by 100% of my time for free.

Please like this page and help spread the word! Put the power back in our hands!. https://www.facebook.com/pages/San-Francisco-Drivers/279959605349056

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Very creative idea.

But what's the downside?

Having a complete stranger sitting next to you or behind you. Cars are smaller these days.

Nothing is perfect. But I do wish you the best with the plan. If the public out there is in demand for such a service they may go for it. As you know, there is old fashioned method, the thumb. But, folks don't trust others as much as they used to. I think one downside is just like what happened to those who picked their last hitch-hiker. Death. Two problems which keep many away from the plan, fear, and, trust. And, well, a third, the will to survive.

Still, it can work, but, if there was a way to add in a little security to this matter you could start this whole hitch-hiking deal right back the way it was years ago when people didn't fear as much and could trust more.

Time to brainstorm!!! : )

(I already know a couple ideas myself, we have the technology.)

[-] 1 points by SoftwareEngineer (16) 8 years ago

Well yeah, I thought about this, we have to do background checks on drivers... full background checks and have all their information. I think they should be ok with this considering they're making a lot of money and a living through this. Since I'm making no money on this, I can't afford to do background checks on people, so they'll have to pay for the background checks possibly.. I'll figure it out.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Cool. Just something I was thinking. Some people may not worry too much about it but does seem limit the appeal for others who may have the concern.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So, how much do you make, Mr. Truth?

And, oh yeah, why would the rich have any incentive to get rich if it's so luxurious being one of the poor.

Is this one of those Herman Cain Jokes?

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

i work as labor for a construction company.

i never say its luxurious being poor, i'm simply stating that i dont understand how the government justifies basically providing everything for people without at least requiring proof that they have tried to get a job or provide for themselves.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Are you for drug testing them as well?

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

honestly i cant say i'm for or against. It would help cut back the amount of ppl on the receiving end

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Actually, the places where it's been tried so far has proved fruitless. It's costing more than it saves. In FLA, the Governor there was doing a back scratching favor for the company that does the drug testing. They contributed to his campaign. And he signed into law that if you receive welfare you must be drug tested first.

Good business, for the drug tester. And, good business for Governor Scott. (What geniuses they are. : ) )

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

well i didnt know that thank you for the information. it just shows how politicians are greedy and power-hungry

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not a problem. : )

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

quick question is there proof? i would like to read about it

[-] 1 points by RantCasey (782) from Saginaw, MI 8 years ago

The jobs are in china and Mexico. They were given away as a gift from our corporate freinds.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

Automation brings wonders. A thresher can do the work of a score of serfs. I don't need them anymore. Why share? They did none off the work.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It's paradigm shift. It's already begun which is why you must have a college education these days not just to make more money but also to have a job.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

jobs should not be required to survive

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I totally agree.

[-] 1 points by Nathan (3) 8 years ago

There is NO Bush tax cut, when you hit alternative minimum tax (AMT)!! My household income is just around $150K, and I need to pay AMT tax, which is really meant for the real "rich" people. The Bush tax cut only sounds good on paper. I pay lots of taxes, and I cannot afford to buy a median size home in my neighborhood, priced at $750K.

The biggest problem with income tax is that the people who should be paying a lot, can always afford the best tax accountants to dig out all the tax loop holes. I'd say that we get rid of income taxes completely, and move to a progressive sales tax system. We can tax 100% or 200% on the boats and yatch, and the rich people will be forced to pay their fair shares without any escapes. Have 80% tax on the $1000 jewelries, but have 0% to 2% sales tax on basic food and necessities. That is what I called progressive.

Otherwise, as long as you have tax deductions, the 1% rich will always find the ways to deduct it.

No more tax deductions. No income taxes. And sales taxes for everybody (including ALL foreign tourists and aliens who consume within the USA border). Better yet, because the transition from income tax to sales tax will for sure need to be gradual, can you imagine ALL the people who rush to consume to buy all kinds of goods & services before government raising the sales taxes? That is what I call true economic stimulus. With such increasing demands, the economy will be back in no time.

[-] 1 points by tomddrum (1) 8 years ago

I believe that a big part of our problem is the existence of lobbyists. These people have the influence over our politicians only because of their financial power. Make lobbying illegal, and you will get a similar result to term limits. The people who benefit the most from closing down factories in the US and making the products overseas are the top level of the corporation (from the VP level thru the board of directors). If we can consciously buy American made whenever possible, it would be good. However, we need to lower corporate tax rates to competed with other countries (maybe to 22%, but not 9%). If we do this, then the corporate welfare subsidies will have to stop! Finally, let's compromise: increase taxes on the rich, but cut all government spending drastically ALSO! And as far as those that do not pay any taxes at all (close to 50%), you have to have some skin in the game too (maybe a minimum amount, say , $500 per year).

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Actually, yes I agree, but in degree. I think lobbyists do serve a useful function when they exercise w/o corruption (on their merits) and totally eliminating them would create other kinds of problems.

But, absolutely, the system is way out of balance and there are way too many lobbyists. No doubt. They should reduce their numbers greatly and limit their influence to a more reasonable level.

Yes, essentially, we want this damned playing field leveled fairly. Right now the greedy rich have brought us to the brink of collapse because congress is bought and sold by them. Wall Street was run like a casino game where the shell game was our American DREAM

We are losing the AMERICAN DREAM....................................

[-] 1 points by Salaam86 (161) from Springfield, IL 8 years ago

No where, because they sent them all overseas, in order to make even more money. This is the nature of corporate greed.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

This is why we need the regulators back to watch these crooks. The de-regulation obviously went way over the top. We need to restore balance. Stop rewarding companies to send jobs overseas.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Actually, the poor have NOT gotten poorer, they just haven't SHARED in the new wealth being created in the global economy. See the chart title Average Household Income at http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph and note the income of ALL went up.

Why did the income of the rich go up so much? Take a look at the Productivity vs Wages chart at the bottom of the page at http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2011/01/a_graph_im_trying_to_understan.html . Notice how wages and productivity started separating at the precise time that computers and robots started emerging in offices and manufacturing facilities. This equipment is bought by investors using CAPITAL and it brings huge rewards. Just start paying attention to how OFTEN you're interacting with a computer rather than a person these days, and remember, almost ALL manufactured products include a LOT of robotic "labor."

Those that like to compare the "record profits" of American Corporations to the wages of the American worker would be WELL SERVED to study where those profits CAME from. They came from OVERSEAS. The DOMESTIC economy is a mess right now as the average American household is still retiring DEBT from the spending spree of the prior decade. If I make products in robotic factories located in Malaysia and have 100,000 employees worldwide, but only 10,000 in the USA, are those 10,000 American employees somehow ENTITLED to profits generated by my capital investments, foreign labor, and OVERSEAS sales ?

If the "average working man" wants a share of his company's GLOBAL revenues, then there's a REALLY simple way to do EXACTLY that. PUT OFF buying that new iPad for while and buy some STOCK in your company!

In regards taxes and services, I am a '1-5%er' and I pay $78,000 a year in taxes for roads, bridges, and other core services provided by society/government. I do NOT, however, use the emergency room at the local hospital, collect food stamps, etc. Furthermore, I have never received a government subsidized or government backed loan. I dropped out of high school and never went to college. Overall, it seems I use FEWER government services than many and AM paying "my fair share in taxes." How many government services are YOU using and what did YOU pay in taxes last year ?

Finally, we '1-5%ers' didn't create the problems the public suffers from today. See my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/inconvenient-truths-america/ and actually READ the census and other data I provide. Nobody MADE Americans borrow so much money the Bankers became rich, and nobody MADE Americans send all their money overseas. How many products do YOU own that say "MADE in the USA" ?

EDIT: Before you shout me down, please read my post at http://occupywallst.org/forum/one-percenter-ready-to-join-if/ and my proposal at http://occupywallst.org/forum/we-the-people-in-order-to-a-proposal/ . I SUPPORT this movement up to a point, but would REALLY like to see a bit more CIVIL discourse !

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Well, I think answer here comes from the fact, if you are college educated, your unemployment right about 5%. The new poor have come from those in our society who are the least educated, their unemployment rate is undeniably higher than 10%.

This is where the problem lies. Manual Labor jobs don't pay diddly squat anymore and they leave you exhausted at the end of a typically work day. Americans generally don't like those jobs and immigrants have always been willing to pull up the slack. Eventually, as technology advances in the next 15 yrs, robots will do all this, shall I say, meaningless work. (They do now but soon they will do all of it)

We need to employ people differently then before. ANd we need to have meaningful work that can be done by those who do want to work.

Our system is broke, and some folks will never go to college, shall we leave them on the street. We're too intelligent for that. There's an better answer than we've been getting from our polluted congress. We need an honest conversation and with a robust respect facts.

Oh yeah, by the way, I am a EE, I went to school on a student loan which I paid off years ago. Right about 100K total. (It paid for itself many times over) If it wasn't for that financing I would not be an EE today. I love my work designing electronic circuits and could not imagine my life without it.

Thanks Rico. Ideas are welcome here. We will learn from this.

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 8 years ago

Thank you for your civil reply.

I personally think we are in the midst of a paradigm shift with far ranging socio-economic consequences. I thought I the first to realise this (there goes the 'ole Ego), but then someone pointed me to "Player Piano" by Kurt Vonnegut. VERY interesting that he foresaw this paradigm shift so long ago !

I do NOT use the self check lanes at the super-market, and I always push "O" to speak to a real person when a computer answers the phone. I ALSO try to buy products made in the USA whenever I can, but there are so FEW of them anymore, it's hard to hold the line across the board.

By the way, I'm a Systems Engineer ;o)

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Excellent. It is true that we are in for big paradigm shift. As is usual, for some it will be good, others not so good. As engineers we a have tendency to see it coming a little easier. The need for critical thinking is really our only chance as we have enough flat earthers already to carry. If we have too many stuck in out-moded ways of thinking we will crash this mother earth of ours. This must be an awakening of Enlightenment. An appeal to reason. Reason must finally find it's way to the proper place in our lives. We no longer have the luxury of ignoring it, or the mother goes down.

[-] 1 points by Genseric (7) 8 years ago

No one is flooding Africa with Jewish Bankers, pushing programs of genocide, national destruction and saying, "Whatever you do, don't protest, especially the nationalists.

"No one is flooding China with Jewish Bankers, pushing programs of genocide, national destruction and saying, "Whatever you do, don't protest, especially the nationalists."

Of course not, the people who say these things ONLY say them about EVERY White and ONLY White countries. They claim they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-White.

Anti-racist is a codeword for anti-White.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Troll Flamer.

[-] 1 points by OMG (3) 8 years ago

The rich are creating a record number of jobs in China & other countries. The cost of Unionized labor, healthcare and regulations in the USA make Chinese workers more competitive.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

So true. We have drastically reduced manufacturing jobs over the last five decades in this country, a spiral downward. We are in a decline as the highly paid CEOs decided ship our jobs overseas. Greed again pays off very well and we, the middle class, again get sold out.

We have record number of poor now. If you don't have a college ed you are instantly poor and no one cares about how much labor you may produce. Labor is cheap. Talk to the Chinese. Better YET we ought to see how their living because we will be living like that soon. It's our future as America is sold out from underneath us.

Stop Dreaming the American Dream. It's almost gone, and more don't wake up it will too late. In my opinion, we already missed the boat on global warming. We will have live those consequences already. Well, really for the middle-agers, it's our kids that experience that human blunder.

Maybe they'll play back that history in some well made documentaries in the future as they realize how the world got to it's current state they will in. They'll be interested since it will be their WORLD then, the one we LEFT them.

Simply put, history is already informing us that this planet is heading for extremely horrible consequences. When I was young we really had to realistically think of all OUT Nuclear WAR. It was called MAD. Somehow, the duality worked, we did not attain Mutually Assured Destruction, instead no one could fathom being that irrational. Reason could have nothing to do with ALL OUT WAR. We were not really irrational however to believe that it could happen, and, for all those who know some of this, we almost did, do it. The Cuban Missile Crisis.

Reason is our last chance and has been for a long time. God help us all when we either fail to see it or it's leaves the room.

Politics has over run Reason so horribly that we are beginning to resemble America just before the Civil War. Really!

The parallels are interesting. Think about slavery for a thin second. Interesting, just think about it, and, wrap your mind around it. Who are the slaves now?

They call this job creation?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Reason is the way............................the 99 percent........................expect US


[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15398451

Obama wants to push through a jobs bill that includes a tax on the rich. It is being stymied in the Senate. I know we are not supposed to take political sides here, but shouldn't #OWS put a little more focus on this particular issue? The main problem in America right now is that nobody is working together for the best interest of all Americans.

If something positive is being rejected simply because of this delusive belief that the rich are the only ones capable of creating jobs, then a stand must be made. I am afraid that a staunch response by this movement will be the only way to dispel this seemingly idolized reliance on this "the free market knows best" delusion. To ignore any positive piece of legislation b/c it is associated with any party is tantamount to cutting our nose to spite our face.

I hope this message finds you well.

Good luck and God speed.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Shane,

You hit the nail on the head my friend. Eventually, this movement has make a decision on who will push the agenda through congress. And, they will have to choose who they support for 2012.

From the issue side, it seems to be a no-brainer that ultimately it's the dems that like what OWS are doing and support their protests.

The Tea Party & Repugs continue to laugh at the OWS crowd calling them confused and irrelevant. Eric Cantor, a repug right winger, called them a mob. But, praised the tea party.

I think it's inevitable. Also, your absolutely correct, the Jobs Bill Obama is pushing will help us. It can address the problem directly and really create jobs. The repugs, as usual is blocking him, and at the same blaming for not creating enough jobs.

Of course, their narrative says he's created no jobs, which is lie and defies the math completely. They just repeat the same mantra over and over, and people start believing it as true. In most folks busy lives, they don't bother to check the facts, and some wouldn't know how to check facts to begin with.

Here's some sites that do fact check:

http://www.factcheck.org/

http://www.politifact.com/

There's a good place to start. And you fact check the fact checkers. Because remember those who don't tell the truth, always start by saying they are telling the truth, and they are only stating facts. Politics is riddled with the problem of truth telling. Most times it's not that easy. And sometimes the truth lies in the middle somewhere and it's a matter of degree.

Good Luck!

[-] 1 points by ShaneSpaulmaster (36) 8 years ago

http://occupywallst.org/forum/obama-jobs-bill/#comment-209396

I created a separate thread just for this comment, check out some of the replies. Thanks for the links BTW.

As always, Good luck and God speed.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thank you!

: )

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Today more $$$$$ is in the hands of the Richest Americans than at any other time in modern U.S. history. Thanks to the trickle down theory that the rich are the sole Job Creators

The results are in................................................

An analysis of income-tax data gleaned by the Congressional Budget Office two years ago found that the top 1% of households own nearly twice as much of the corporate $$$$$$ in the United States as they did just 15 years ago.

While the average income for the poorest Americans has barely gone up over the past several decades running, the incomes of the wealthiest Americans have absolutely exploded.

The truth is that over the past couple of decades, the "rules of the game" have been skewed even more in favor of the rich. Centralization and globalization have been two keys trend which have contributed to this. For example, in the old days you could make a good living by opening up a store in your local town if you worked really, really hard. But today you will be crushed by Wal-Mart and other "big box" stores.

So where do all the those big profits that Wal-Mart and the other "big box" stores make go?

They get shipped out of our struggling neighborhoods to a bunch of rich fat cats. The numbers don't lie. We always need to remember that the statement that the rich are getting filthy rich & richer while the poor get poorer is true and verifiable.

We are waking up to the truth. That's why we're in the street, and we're staying!!!

[-] 1 points by zapschaft (95) 8 years ago

The atmosphere in the U.S. has become so braindead that the excuse the GOP will come up with is "It's all obama's fault". They won't create jobs because he is president. When they get rid of him, that will solve the job problem. Can you believe people actually believe this shit?

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

It is a simple fact. When the income tax rate on dividends are lower than the corporate tax rate, trickle down economics ceases to work. Rather, corporations seek to limit profits through the payment of dividends and this benefits only shareholders. They do not seek to grow their business and create jobs. Rather, they pay out tremendous amounts to their executives in the form of dividends. It is simply the most efficient use of capital, it is really not immoral as much as it is smart.

That has got to be fixed, as this arrangement leads naturally to decreased demand and inevitable economic failure.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Sounds like slide of hand to me, clever.

So, you believe trickle down works?

[-] 1 points by sfsteve (151) 8 years ago

It is a fact that the economy grew with little unemployment during Reagan, but it was undermined by blind ideology. Reagan cut business tax and that stimulated growth. He undermined this by raising lower bracket rates and lowering upper bracket rates. This practice never leads to trickle down, rather it leads to decreased demand and hoarding of capital.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I remember Ronny. We had an unemployment rate well over 10% with him. Also the tax rates were fairer under him although he made some cuts, he eventually raised taxes. It was also during those Reagan years we first saw the people begging for money on the side of the roads. I worked for a Military-Aerospace government contractor and due to the massive military buildup Reagan initiated I did find ample work coming up as electrical engineer. Trident II. Also, Peacekeeper

He did create a ton of government related jobs all calumniating into the 1st Gulf War under Bush I watch.

No, still trickle down doesn't work, it's mythical.

[-] 1 points by CAFR1 (7) from St Johns, AZ 8 years ago

Per who "Owns it all" and why things are as they are, please comment on article - http://occupywallst.org/forum/walter-burien-speaking-to-the-health-and-freedom-c/

Thanks,

Walter Burien - CAFR1.com

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Should they send their money to you.

You don't work with those scammers do you?

I find your ideas suspect.

[-] 1 points by CAFR1 (7) from St Johns, AZ 8 years ago

Throwing out a sound-bite reply that is 100% opposite of what is brought forward is a provocateur technique. Let me cancel that out for you. The info presented was:

  1. How to phase out all taxation

  2. Establishing the government "owns" the corporations; banks; brokerage; and insurance companies by massive "investment" in them that government built up over decades to be "collectively" the primary owners thereof...

  3. How to make the People the "First Line Beneficiary" of the wealth.


Per your two questions the answers are:

  1. That is an idiot question so no reply.

  2. No, and in fact "those scammers" have destroyed my life over the last 15 years.

Per your comment, it is apparent you did not understand anything you looked at, or in the alternative you are a provocateur - misdirection operative.

In the event as the case may be you can not understand, here is a YouTube watched by nine-million people that may be more compatible to your understanding level and interests - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eC1tikkotVU

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Interesting technique. Provocateur.

Do you have reliable sources you may share with us that you used to base your economic manifesto upon?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Anything?

[-] 1 points by jeyowell1 (57) 8 years ago

Contrary to popular myth, there is an inverse relationship between tax rates for the wealthy and unemployment. When their tax rates go down historical data shows a corresponding increase in the unemployment rate. Think of money as the oxygen being sucked out of the room and stop wondering why people can't breath.

Another myth that accompanies the bubbles blown by low tax rates for the wealthy: "this time it's different".

What could help? Tax long term capital gains at marginal rates and lower marginal rates for everyone.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Not everyone in America is hurting during this economic downturn. In fact, the wealthiest Americans are doing just fine. At a time when millions of Americans are losing their jobs and their homes, and we can't get a jobs bill through congress if the white house was on fire, the folks at the top end of the income scale are actually seeing their incomes go up. In 2009, the number of millionaires in the United States rose 16 percent to 7.8 million at a time when tens of millions of other Americans were experiencing gut-wrenching economic despair. Upside down homes. The truth is that the statistics and the data do not lie. Wealth and income are increasingly becoming concentrated in the hands of the wealthiest Americans. So just what kind of game is going on?

Many here are getting the picture, overcoming the old recycled narratives, the truth is out there.

[-] 1 points by DJR (31) 8 years ago

Agreed. But theres also many non-one percenters that are doing just fine, too. There's no need for those millions to get involved. They're busy planning vacations, golfing, spending time with the grandkids, etc, etc. OWS will be very hard pressed to win this group over, if at all. The movement could easily present this as a class warfare thing.but that's extremely dangerous territory. It would be hard fought and pobably not winnable, at least in the US. The only way to win is, imo, 1. Principle. 2. Organization and 3. Persistance, ie, POP!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Good post. I agree, thanks for the info.

[-] 1 points by Krankie (140) 8 years ago

India and China. The corporation that I work for is making more profits than ever, and they can't dump American workers fast enough so they can make even more by replacing Americans with whoever will work for the lowest wage.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The race to the bottom as I call it and others do as well. Undeniable.

[-] 1 points by Krankie (140) 8 years ago

Only for you and me. For my CEO, it is a race to see who can own the most mansions and the most jets. Let's face it, when the USS America goes under, the CEOs ain't going to be on board.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

They may have to give up that extra vacation home they planned, and just keep the five they already have.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Just think about it......................

It is hard for many of us to recognize that the society we live in helps create poverty and insecurity, but it is true. Our economy is based on endless growth. We’re told that if the rich get richer, it makes other people less poor. Think about it for a moment—about how crazy that is. Wouldn’t it make much more sense to enrich the poor directly, to help them get land and access to resources?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Crazzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzy

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The top 400 wealthiest Americans make more than the bottom 60% of ALL of US.

How hard do you work?

How hard do they?

See a problem?

Does this sound like the rich getting richer? Does to me.

[-] 1 points by SpaghettiMonster (90) 8 years ago

Frakking economists - these people help perpetuate this limitless growth nonsense that we're stuck in. Just look at what happens when economies go into the sub 3% growth rate, not to mention shrinking or zero growth. Yet zero growth is exactly what we need to be working towards. There's no a topic more depressing than overpopulation IMO, it's so unbelievably unnecessary this hopeless situation we're in. Unfortunately for us however, the physical limits of our planet will come kicking us in the arse.

Sorry about the digression from the main topic here, it's just every time I hear about job creation I can't help but feel somewhat down.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Your not alone. I've been hearing this mantra since the Reagan days. As young as was then, it was always suspect to me. They keep replaying it as if we don't realize that after four decades of this the results are crystal clear.

Wasn't there like this President named Hoover?

I'm surprised the republican party wasn't pummeled to the ground for good back then. But, on second thought, they were kept out of the presidency from 1932-1952 after Hoover left in disgrace at the height of the depression he was involved in creating. . That was a good stretch of time. Seems that generation knew first-hand what a lie can do.

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

The jobs that have been created are in the government, the jobs that are not in government have been decreasing day by day!!! The government has made it so hard for companys to survive!

http://therevolutionarytruth.tumblr.com/

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The narrative again, what's that, all government jobs are bad.

Hmmm. So, why do those who oppose government run for it?

Am I the only one who sees this duality screaming to be heard.

Aren't all politicians somewhat sociopathic?

[-] 1 points by RevolutionaryTruth (95) from Houston, TX 8 years ago

Well its quite simple Corruption!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, as long it is extremely profitable to be corrupt which it is in today's world. I can't think of a better incentive. It's more alluring then most hard drugs.

[-] 1 points by RufusJFisk52 (259) 8 years ago

tax breaks are only one function for job creation.....demand is the other. Remember, businesses pass on the extra money in taxes they have to pay to either raising the prices of the product or lowering the wages. That hurts both consumer and employee. Simple economics. Remember we cannot run a business just for the sheer patriotic duty of creating jobs......you have to have a product people want and demand and that can make money.

[-] 1 points by antihippie (1) 8 years ago

Well "stimulus" money doesnt seem to work either..... Were in just as deep a hole as when obama passed that damn thing...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

ANd riddle me this one, if tax cuts stimulate the economy which some do, then are they not a "stimulus". Or is stimulating the economy through focused tax cuts not really stimulating.

Just a thought coming out of my right toe at this moment.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Stimulus does work. What doesn't work is trickle down.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Trickle Down This

Overall, data from the past 50 years strongly refutes any arguments that cutting taxes for the richest Americans will improve the economic standing of the lower and middle classes or the nation as a whole. To be sure, the economic indicators are dependent on a variety of factors, not just tax policy. Any subsequent attempt to stimulate economic growth by cutting taxes for the rich will do nothing -- it hasn't worked over the past 50 years, so why would it work in the future?

To put it as simple as possible, Bush's top-bracket tax cut is an ineffective attempt at stimulus that will not cause any growth -- unless, of course, if you're talking about the size of the deficit.

This is can be fact checked against reliable sources. I suggest for those who are skeptical to do that to be honest to yourself. We have 50 years of real life experience. This is the reason we find ourselves today in the ditch.

We need to become truth seekers who really know truth and how to recognize it. It does not come easy and fit those nice little narrow minded narratives. It starts with an open mind.

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 8 years ago

The check is in the mail. If I were jobless, I would be waiting next to my mailbox every day. The politicians said they would create jobs. I have no reason to doubt their sincerity. They are a great group of guys. Maybe, they will even send me a Xmas card.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It might be a bill inside your mailbox instead with wacko ideas coming out of the tea party. They cuddle the 1% as the great job creators as the repugs do consistently.

Why. maybe we should be cuddling them even more, and, then they'll really create those jobs. We're making them mad threatening to put them on a leash. Damn derivatives, get you every time, AAA rated to boot. Who could lose. I mean if the rating agency says, then......oh, their corrupt too....oh, darn. But don't worry you rich fat cats we got your back, we don't mind financing your jag. We're not watching, go right on ahead, you wall street gurus are geniuses.....

And then someone woke up. And more, and more, and more, and more,

I'm liking it, wake UPPPPPPPPPPPPP...................

[-] 1 points by ETBass (65) 8 years ago

Why does a tax rate need to be funded? What a stupid concept, my earnings are my earnings and I pay a shitload of taxes every year. What claim do you have to my earnings? If a tax cut has to be funded as you erroneously state, what is the optimal rate from which we have departed? Top marginal rates have varied from 2% to 90%, which rates were "funded"? Such comments really hurt your cause because they demonstrate utter ignorance of economics.

[-] 1 points by CapitalismRulesPeriod (160) 8 years ago

they are being crushed by business choking corporate taxes and no there are not huge loop holes except for GE which is almost a legal monopoly controlled by the goverment.

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 8 years ago

You want jobs you free up the capital a lot of citizens have that they can't use.This strenghtens the consumer. When consumers have capital this creates a demand for goods which in turn creates jobs. Albeit they may not be jobs created here. Consumers pay more taxes. Taxes get spent to fix infrastructure. This creates jobs. Taxes from profits creates jobs. A sense of fair play releases tensions and the fear subsides that allows all of the above to fire properly. I've gleaned a lot from this site. I imagine we will never fix everything but we can as a society try to accomplish this together. It takes time to establish a new direction. I want to speed this process. Trickle down economics is what kings and queens do to their subjects. The people who have should provide good solutions but they are blinded by resentment to those below their imaginary calling.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

When greed is the goal and it drives the money shell games, we get disastrous consequences. 1929. Then we make laws to regulate the Greedy.

And a few decades on, we get trickle down, we just didn't understand what was trickling down on us. And, then they said, from the mountaintop, we MUST release ourselves from the strangle hold of regulation. De-regulate.

And WOW! They were right the money spigot gushed. Money, Money, Money.....

And now, here we are, can we please remember our past this time?

[-] 1 points by FairShare (90) 8 years ago

I agree

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thanks! : )

[-] 1 points by Space (79) 8 years ago

India & China

[-] 1 points by littleg (452) 8 years ago

The jobs are in third world countries where profit margins are considerably higher because of currency valuation difference.

[-] 1 points by anonalien (77) 8 years ago

in many cases, illegal immigrants work the jobs for the third or fourth of what the legals would make. also, people are more and more often given W9s instead of W4s. recently, an employer seeking a worker told me: i don't want to pay employment taxes, social security, medicaid, UI, etc, etc, do you mind filing your earnings as self-employed? i told her to go fuck herself.

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 8 years ago

The jobs are in China.

[-] 1 points by OWSNewPartyTakeNY2012 (195) 8 years ago

totally agree. trickle down economics is a failed policy.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Exactly, it's played out. The results are in, and we're in it, knee deep. It's kind of like that other failed policy, the War On Drugs

[-] 1 points by frankchurch1 (839) from Jersey City, NJ 8 years ago

Forbes magazine once gloated that the rich were getting richer without creating jobs. Jobs are another expense.

They undercut jobs, that's part of their mission. NAFTA pretty much killed huge swaffs of jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Worshiping the almighty dollar. Once the money is shown many folks would just about anything and some would do anything, just name the right price.

Batta-Bing-Batta-Booom

[-] 1 points by Motoruckus (3) from Tulare, CA 8 years ago

im an employer....of 25 people. last month 2 filed unfounded suits against me, 2 others tested positive for drug use, 1 walked of a job, and 1 just didnt show up for work. I spend nearly 40k a year training people who just eventually quit when they get a child support garnishment or DUI. So for all you folks who have never actually used your own money to create a job, or put your earnings at risk to be successful....you'll get no sympathy. I have a college degree, and worked in the corporate world for 17 years. You have no idea how much they pay in taxes. You read headlines only. Bottom line is this sure aint the good ol USA. On that we can agree. What was once the land of the free and home of the brave is now the home of the weak and the land of the free ride. Take a new poll for me and count the number of people at OWS that are receiving some type of government financial support or pay no taxes at all. Oh yea....that would be at least 50% since thats the posted number of full time students who only have an academic understanding of the world they live in. This makes me sick.

[-] 1 points by mserfas (652) from Ashland, PA 8 years ago

It is extremely valuable for people like you to speak here, and tell people about the practical problems associated with generating employment. OWS can and should put a high priority on bringing attention to the obstacles that hinder small business, especially. I can't speak for the OWS people, but I don't see anything wrong with hard-working small business owners getting ahead - my disagreement concerns the uppermost echelons who expect to write the laws, have their losses paid by the taxpayers, and monopolize whole economic sectors. People here have started off with a very crude conversation - they want more money, you want more money. Now let's move beyond that and ask, why can't you and them work together to get it?

To begin with: why do people quit because they get a child support garnishment or DUI? If they have that kind of problem, sounds like a really bad time to be unemployed!

You say you spend 40k a year training people - what kind of expenditures are those? Would they exist if we had universal free education in this country?

You say two tested positive for drug use - did you have to fire them? Did you really have to know about it at all?

Two filed unfounded suits - I suppose you can't get into details - but I would love to see a crackdown on certain moronic theories of liability. Companies are afraid to let people go up on a rooftop because they'll be blamed if someone jumps, even though they walk beside a busy street filled with busses and trucks to get to the door. Liability caps aren't really enough - I want to see better logic in the courts to begin with.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

How many engineers do you employ?

What kind of work environment do provide your employees?

Better yet what aren't you telling us since you have high turnover?

[-] 1 points by AmericanArtist (53) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Wiki Occupy Wall Street

http://www.wikioccupywallst.org

United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 8 years ago

So.....some politicians gave you a promise, and you believed it? Who's fault is that? It may sound harsh, but if you are waiting around for some self-serving politician to help you make it in life, you will be waiting a long time....probably until hell freezes over. I suggest that you come up with a better plan.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I already did but thanks for your advice.... : )

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 8 years ago

Good Job! and Good Luck!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

SmallBizGuy - Politicians are one of these necessary evils that we have to endure. Unless I really know a politician I do not trust anything that comes from their without double & triple checking. I'm a rationalist at heart looking for the truth in things but politics strays far and wide at times with it's deceptions.

For an engineer like me it is just a puzzle never really to be solved. The sciences on the other hand are beautiful in their eloquent truths which never waver.

[-] 1 points by SmallBizGuy (378) from Savannah, GA 8 years ago

That's the same reason that I love mathematics. When I am wrong, it ain't the fault of the equation.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Cha-Ching........................

Mathematics is a pure science.

It gives us hope that in this maddening world, there is truth. It's whether we choose to see it or not.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Senate report on Wall Street crash

This document points to the central role of the big Wall Street banks in promulgating the fraud, stating: “Investment banks were the driving force behind the structured finance products that provided a steady stream of funding for lenders originating high-risk, poor-quality loans and that magnified risk throughout the US financial system. The investment banks that engineered, sold, traded and profited from mortgage-related structured finance products were a major cause of the financial crisis.”

The overall picture is one of criminality on the part of the entire financial establishment that, with all levels of government serving as its co-conspirator, systematically looted the economy in order to further enrich itself. The result is a social tragedy for tens of millions of people in the US and many millions more around the world. And yet, the result of this historic crime is that the bankers and speculators are richer and more powerful than ever.

[-] 1 points by padel (1) 8 years ago

Need to redefine "job creators" in the popular debate. Small business enterprises employ more people than the 1% owned megacorporations, and a substantial number of these small business enterprises belong to people making less than $250,000. The term "job creators" has been hijacked, it is being improperly used in political debates and the media. Whenever you hear the term "job creators" being used as a euphamism for "the rich", dont accept it. Insist on proper usage! The 1% are "the rich". Jobs are created by ALL business enterprises, large and not large. There are more "not large" business jobs than than there are "large" business jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

padel - I agree the term "Job Creator" itself is slippery slope especially in political speak. It was always a line of bull that we have lived out and still live with. The bankers are still trying to defraud us, it is incessant greed. The system with those at the very top just can't stop. No one has been held accountable yet. Three years later.

[-] 1 points by Arnold (3) 8 years ago

Let the Bush Tax cuts expire!

We need jobs, do like the Chinese. Demand local content in the product, demand Multinational/Foreign Corporations partner with a local company and transfer their technology to the local business, devalue the currency, export, export, export... Done, we will have full employment!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Arnold - They due to expire in 2013, yes!!! : )

If a repug gets elected in 2012, they will not expire. : (

[-] 1 points by wweddingMadeintheUSA (135) 8 years ago

We need to boycott imported goods Buy Made in the USA!!!!

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 8 years ago

well....look at this calculation of the total cost to employ a person.... its about 50% more than their stated wage... so if an employer pay a person $15/hour, the employer actually has cash out the door of ~$21.50. THEN the company has to sell enough stuff to earn enough money to justify the $21.50/hour.... so what are they selling? what is the margin? most businesses operate on slim COGS margins 30% or so. Thus the rich person's company needs to sell about $150k in additional product just to BREAK EVEN hiring the person. and no business can stay in business without returning money to investors. we might not like it, but dems da facks jack

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 8 years ago

That's correct. People are too egregious to accept the fact that a majority of profit is needed to pay an individuals income ...how exactly does it go? I need to be emindd of the process, I think its of a makes 2 1and b makes 21 then then they can only supply the salary of a certain amount of individuals before they begin to lose money...correct?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Thems the greedy rich, la-ti-da.

I experienced one of those companies that some rich investors came in and gutted to maximize their profits. I was an electrical design engineer there and loved my work. Then they came. The atmosphere in that factory changed drastically from a family-like attitude to the walking dead. It was like someone left the air out, it was gone. Everyone I knew who worked in engineering either quit or were fired. Some worked there for twenty years. Good souls. We had to sign these legal papers upon our demise. Yea, profits!!!

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 8 years ago

many factors going on ... the previous owner sounded nice, but either wasnt makign enough money (hence bad manager and should be booted by investors) or they were greedy and sold out...as for investors, if the team was so valuable, the business would not have survived everyone leaving...otherwise if the people could be replaced, the investors should earn money

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

It was a monopoly business actually and they were leveraging the market. The owners were smart to buy out the competition before selling out. It mmade a lucrative deal then they could rid themselves of the redundancies. Two companies which at one time competed fiercely were now one. I designed a new product for them they could manufacture and sell for at least the next five years at least, so there wasn't much interest in any new design, pinch, that was end for me. I thanked them for it. I either design or walk. I'm still in demand but since not enough Americans are cutting the mustard these days to be BSEEs, they have to import engineers, and have been for some time now. I work with some, very smart, and good at it. It's science, a universal language.

Yes, I understand the business side. But, also, there's this fairy tale that some go for. They passed that tough immigration law in Alabama and, problem, Americans don't pick tomatoes, so guess what happened for the tomatoe farmers in AL. They got alot of rotten tomatoes.

[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 8 years ago

Agreed. I pay my assistants a salary of about $40K per year but it actually costs me closer to $70K.

[-] 1 points by greentara (78) 8 years ago

yup...and we have good benefits and profit sharing so were closer to 85k

[-] 1 points by TheDude (18) 8 years ago

NOW HEAR THIS: Corporate Tall by VOLTFACE - a song about Wall Street. Wonderfully appropriate! Its the Anthem we needed!

Listen for FREE on BANDCAMP:

http://voltface.bandcamp.com/track/corporate-tall

Available on iTunes as well...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Get to know yourself, I agree with that.

Sounds like Socrates - Know Thyself......

It helps

[-] 1 points by Neominini (42) 8 years ago

No demands! We no longer want them. This may be hard to hear but here it is. It is time to get out of the city. Spend the rest of your money on seeds and food stores. Plan a new location with open land to build and plant. Every protester might be angry this is true. However, we have all proven to be buddha and jesus. It is time to occupy away from all major cities but still together.

[-] 1 points by RillyKewl (218) 8 years ago

The income gap widens.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

Innovations creates jobs.
Consumer confidence also creates jobs. When consumer confidence increases, it will create the demand which will create jobs.

There is lots of evidence that the rich do not create jobs. They might help foster financial backing for the innovators, which is somewhat necessary, but they do not create jobs. At best, they are a cog in the wheel. It's time that we pointed this out to them. They are but a cog.

If this protest is successful it could be the confidence boost the economy needs!

And the innovation will come, given time!

[-] 1 points by zoom6000 (430) from St Petersburg, FL 8 years ago

In China,vitnam,russia ,did i say russia yes in russia

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 8 years ago

do you have any idea how much the top 1%, or the top 10% or the top 50%, already pay for the rest of us? no im sure you're clueless. check the stats and you will be amazed. pick on the so-called rich, extract more of their earnings and wealth and guess what will happen? they will be gone! and then you'll see what a real budget deficit looks like. its idiots like you that dont have a clue that should just keep quiet, or get your facts straight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=share

this video says it all. the occupy wall street movement has force and passion and is rooted in widespread frustration. however its target - -wall street -- is off the mark. look at this you-tube video to see where the OWS efforts would be more appropriately targeted.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Darn it! I forgot my boots this morning. Well, heck, I guess what I really need is a ladder anyways. It's just so hard to stay above it.

Oh, by the way, I find your post amazing. Nice try.

We know why we are here. OWS has their eyes on the right folks. The old narrative is breaking away for your old school thought there Joe. I think you'll have to modify that narrative soon or you'll just remained confused and still have the urge to cuddle the rich for some reason.

The rich MUST pay their fair share which they DO NOT NOW. Put that in your narrative and send it to Hannity so he can make the adjustment. Tell him I said so. : )

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 8 years ago

Thts one of the main problems with you occupiers, you're too close-mind and stuck within your own preconceptions to even reflect on someone else's point-of-view....

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

No, it's not that, it's that I demand respect. When you use the word "idiot" to characterize the person(s) you are writing to, you show a lack of respect. So, yes, my mind closes to you because I don't do insults from strangers very well.

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 8 years ago

Ha I did not use the word idiot, I simply meant that you aren't thinking from another individuals perspective, if I offended you I apologize....and a word of advice you shouldn't make such weaknesses apparent.. may I ask. That before you deem ones argument BS you do research to Support your argument

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Respect is not a weakness, it is a strength. And, yes, dah, there's an edit function here. Well, good, your cleaning up. You can always earn your respect back.

The problem is there's a pattern to this. Just like folks in real life, most people generally have set behaviors, and unless acted upon by some strong force from within or outside remain in their typical habits. I do have empathy but do not empathize with anyone who doesn't show a basic level of respect.

Debate is fine, and none of us ever agree on everything or there's something wrong with us but there's a way to do it with everyone going away satisfied with something new learned. Debate is good. Be strong Abridge3141

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Debate makes one stronger.............................

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

and stronger and stronger.............................

[-] 1 points by Abridge3141 (117) 8 years ago

I wish the same to. You...have I posted on this page before this? And yes I do enjoy debating as much as you may...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

The Greedy money grubbing Rich MUST pay their fair share which they DO NOT DO NOW. Put that in your narrative and send it to Hannity so he can make the adjustment. Tell him I said so. : )

[-] 1 points by gizmopigon (68) 8 years ago

If you want a job create one for yourself. North Dakota needs workers in the oil field unemployment is 3% the weather is subhuman but at least get paid, and can have rack of ribs and bullets to shoot peasants during hunting season. The poor need to pay more taxes too fund social security and medicare but raising taxes is taboo among the left, but it okay raise them on smokers, truck drivers, pig farmers,. Class warfare is pointless the goal should be to fix problems in the economy that lead to perverted incentives on all sides. If I made 400 million and were depressed like the person making 30,000 a year both would use booze and cocaine or other chemicals to make their worries go away. Money at certian point will not buy me more joy or happiness.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think most of us don't ask for too much. We just want to survive, have a little fun, freedom, have meaningful work, and not least of which, security. We want to know the roof over our heads doesn't blow off permanently and we still have that chicken in the pot. And, if we get sick, we don't get dumped in ditch because we didn't have an insurance card. That, and the love of my life, and fade into the sunset with a smile : )

[-] 1 points by 8472ofborg (100) from Bruce, SD 8 years ago

Here is my thoughts on the reason they don't create jobs. They are already successful. If you were making over $250,000 a year at your current job, why would you then risk losing that money in a new business venture? If you own the company you are working for, you can just write off any expansion as a business expense and not be out a penny. Why create a new business and new jobs?

[-] 1 points by Flsupport (578) 8 years ago

Do not question The Lord thy Job Creator!!!!!!

Oh and dont pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

[-] 1 points by Fedup10 (228) 8 years ago

The rich are not buying and not hiring because of the threats from Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and OWS.

[-] 1 points by FuManchu (619) 8 years ago

That is not exactly true. The Bush tax cuts reduced tax at every level. The reason it helps the rich more is because it reduced long term capital gains tax. Most rich people have a lot of investments and it helped to reduce tax on those returns. There was no special reduction of taxes for people making over $250k. That $250K defines rich is just propaganda.

By the way, the rich do not create jobs. Demand created jobs.

[-] 1 points by truthhurts (33) 8 years ago

Both parties run by rich folks. Neither are giving up their money. Boycott the next election unless there is a third party available.

[-] 1 points by daviddesigns (4) 8 years ago

I agree lets help get the word out

http://www.zazzle.com/daviddesigns

[-] 1 points by GarrySpeaks (1) 8 years ago

They cannot hope that someone will buy their products when everyone will boycott. Better to make more opportunities for future success and help everybody. -sigh-. These rich will never know the importance of business..

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 8 years ago

If government spending, specifically deficit spending, as prescribed in Keynesian theory, creates jobs, shouldn't we be rolling in jobs by now. Since 2007, when the dems took control of congress they've spent about 6.3 trillion in excess of revenues. Certainly, if spending creates jobs we should be in great shape.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, there has been jobs created because of the stimulus. But it wasn't enough as many warned at the time. But, unless your allergic to facts, the economy did not crash into depression and the bleeding has stopped as might have happened if a hands-off approach was tried. Remember the stimulus kept teachers in our schools, police on the beat, and firemen ready to save houses. This is what the stimulus did. Why don't you consider the facts and please identify your sources for those facts next time. I change my mind when presented with the truth which must be verified.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 8 years ago

Why don't you provide sources for your "facts"? If 6.3 trillion isn't enough stimulus, how much is? Do we need another 6 trillion? More? Less?

The Obama stimulus ($787billion) failed to deliver what he promised. Most of the jobs that were "created or saved" were only temporary until the money ran out and created no long term jobs. The unemployment rate peaked at 10% and is chronically stuck at 9%, whereas the stimulus was going to keep it from exceeding 8%. Money went into union pension funds which could not create a single job.

Please get your facts right. Again, I sat, if deficit spending and Keynesian economics worked, there would be no need for OWS.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Keynesian economics does work and has been proven to work. I know the repug narrative you've been listening to has confused you with the facts. You should check this out for yourself if you so inclined. The narrative can weigh you down and close your mind to the truth. I was around in those days of Reagan when the UR was over 10%.

As a brief refresh for you, Keynesian economics advocates a mixed economy — predominantly private sector, but with a significant role of government and public sector — and served as the economic model during the later part of the Great Depression, World War II, and the post-war economic expansion (1945–1973), though it lost some influence following the stagflation of the 1970s. The advent of the global financial crisis in 2007 has caused a resurgence in Keynesian tactics as the world still shutters from the Wall Street Con Game.

[-] 1 points by schnitzlefritz (225) 8 years ago

I don't know where you get your facts, but two US economists just won the Nobel Prize for independently revealing the flaws in Keynesian Economics.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Would that happen to be Robert Lucas, the economist who was later refuted?

[-] 1 points by superman22x (188) 8 years ago

The jobs aren't in art degrees, that's why you missed them.

[-] 1 points by legalassistant (164) from New York, NY 8 years ago

And when I complain after working in a non-creative capacity for 30 years without moving up, and my buying power decreases because of inflation you will tall me I should have been more creative.

Look, I don't like a consumer driven economy. I am an anti-consumerist. But let's be realistic. If you are going to have this kind of economy, you need consumers. Everyone should be paid a living wage whether or not they are working.

[-] 1 points by MossyOakMudslinger (106) from Frederick, MD 8 years ago

Puzzlin,

If The Rich Are Jobs Creators, Where Are The Jobs?

Great question. Its pure BS because for the most part they don't create jobs.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

MossyOakMudslinger,

I agree it is BS, and worse, it's a diversion from the truth. Politicians use this narrative all the time but essentially at it's core it is this lie. They do it because they are paid by the Corporations who want to enjoy these big tax breaks. Buy a politician for 100K and save 10 million in taxes, it's pure capitalism run amock because it only about money. When it's just about the money we forget that people are involved.

[-] 1 points by meep (233) 8 years ago

The working class is the job-creator class. Every dollar we get is spent on goods and services that we need or that make our lives better. Once you make over $250,000 a year a significant portion of your money goes into stocks and financial games that only help fund the million dollar bonuses of wall street bankers. We buy the goods and services that create jobs not the 1%.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes indeed, this is one downside to the poor getting poorer. As the middle class gets squeezed to the bottom they will buy less and the whole of the economy sinks lower. But, something tells me, even in that scenario the rich will make it ok. They will have somewhat less but the poorer folks, we end on the street. The rich will never be on the street. They have their nest eggs and golden parachutes.

[-] 1 points by provid (10) 8 years ago

One thing you can do is create a company and then hire workers just like every other rich person did.. That way you can do your part in society by creating jobs yourself. Unless you like the government handing everything to you.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Reminds me of the old addage: It takes money to make money.

It is very much the truth. When money is invested well it way outperforms the common labor of the average worker who performs a real service and makes goods. Sweat equity.

Which reminds of that other addage: I work hard for the money.

[-] 1 points by sickmint79 (516) from Grayslake, IL 8 years ago

money does not create jobs. demand does.

regarding the original post, i have a good idea for creating an intelligent stimulus everyone can get behind. http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-one-stimulus-everyone-can-and-will-get-behind/

also regarding the original post, the 1% has already paid a lot for public infrastructure. roads do not come before business; business activity was needed to tax in the first place to get money to build roads.

[-] 1 points by Tobigtofail (4) from Alamosa, CO 8 years ago

It is asked "where are the jobs that the tax cuts seers supposed to create". I think you have to look a little more clearly at economics to understand that " job creation" was simply a sales pitch and never was a reality. It is a nice idea that if a CEO paid less taxes he would invest his money in a local factory that would hire Americans but it is nieve. He is going to try and put his extra cash into a off shore hedge fund and and make the highest level of profit that he can. Jobs in America will return when Americans start buying American made products. And when I say jobs I mean the millions of jobs that are needed to put Americans back to work. Obama's "jobs program" will not create any lasting effect other then a higher debt for our country. He and every other political person needs to start leading this country by just stating the obvious. Buy American, stop shopping at Wall Mart. The cheapest product in the store is not the best deal. With that said the American worker also has to raise his standard of quality. If he does that he will be able to demand more pay, more ease and his products will be in demand.

[-] 1 points by Indy4Change (254) from Columbia, SC 8 years ago

The problem is not entirely with the rich... The government has a huge hand in this (with and without the influence of the "evil rich"). If my inlaws wanted to use their 40 acres of land to develop a farming income, they would be burdened with regulations to the point that they would either go broke before the sowed their first seed or they would get rich off of the subsidies the government would pay them to keep a tarp on their corn fields. either way, Monsanto would poison their fields with their RoundUp Seeds, and screw them anyhow. It's a combination of everything. You want to make money, start a business - write a strong plan and find a venture capitalist (there are plenty out there just waiting for the next great idea to fund). This country needs to stop being a consumer supported service sector economy. We need to redevelop a strong manufacturing base and stop putting so much emphasis on sending 1,000,000 underprivileged Warren Buffets to college...

[-] 1 points by rgsInPA (2) 8 years ago

Here is a solution, and possibly a way to get 'the rich', and the rest of us pulling in the same direction. Modify the progressive tax curve such that those making more than X million dollars per year are in a 70% tax bracket. Then provide tax breaks of Y% to those same people -IN EVERY YEAR THE MEDIAN INCOME (median, not average) RISES BY Z percent. Maybe another break if unemployment drops below a certain percentage. Certainly a penalty for oursourcing jobs to other countries. They make more when we make more.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 8 years ago

they went Laissez-faire are stopped caring

[-] 1 points by singlemom99 (57) from Bethlehem, PA 8 years ago

I think the people who are sitting on tons of money should spend it to help the youth start their own businesses. They can continue to live a leisured life while we work for our money like the 99% have done since we were 14.

[-] 1 points by OWSisaherosmovement (10) 8 years ago

that's exactly what they've been doing, and why wealth is concentrating in an oligarchical society. it's called venture capital, private equity, angel capital,,,, and when you get $ from them, they make sure you get bent over the barrel forcing you to give up a big stake in your company and big bits of revenue in the future.

[-] 1 points by OnePeople (103) 8 years ago

We're in a business cycle recession. Wait for a cycl- expansion and then there will be more jobs being created.

At the same time Reagan reduced taxes on the wealthy from around 50% to 28% and guess what, revenues stayed nearly the same. 97 Senators voted for that act and it worked well.

[-] 1 points by Resist2011 (8) 8 years ago

Big Business is blackmailing this country saying we'll risk your money on risky investments but don't ask us to use our own money... They are demanding concessions in exchange for helping the American public who are suffering... TREASON....

[-] 1 points by joewealthyhaha (152) 8 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIcqb9hHQ3E&feature=share

this video says it all. the occupy wall street movement has force and passion and is rooted in widespread frustration. however its target - -wall street -- is off the mark. look at this you-tube video to see where the OWS efforts would be more appropriately targeted.

[-] 1 points by Resist2011 (8) 8 years ago

They are waiting for GOP control to eliminate min-wage and all regulations keeping them from raping Americas resources and polluting what's left of a once pristine country... be ready to work for chinese wages and benefits so the share holders make a profit and the CEO walks with $50mil or so a year... "Let Them Eat Cake"... The revolution has started....

[-] 1 points by OWSisaherosmovement (10) 8 years ago

spot on,,, and cheaper labor living in countries without the enormous US cost strucure (housing, food, education all cost proportionally alot more)

[-] 1 points by genanmer (822) 8 years ago

Yes globalization has also exaggerated the problem.

I don't like supporting sweat shops but even if we buy from corporations that don't own sweat shops, those corporations may still trade and purchase products from corporations that do.

[-] 1 points by sage2012 (30) from Hartselle, AL 8 years ago

to (OCEANWEED) Yes, there is a fundamental difference in the two parties. and I will never understand how a truly great and caring man like Ralph Nader ,who I had always looked up to ,believed in and admired could for the sake of political grandstanding say there was not.

[-] 1 points by sage2012 (30) from Hartselle, AL 8 years ago

to (OCEANWEED) Yes, there is a fundamental difference in the two parties. and I will never understand how a truly great and caring man like Ralph Nader ,who I had always looked up to ,believed in and admired could for the sake of political grandstanding say there was not.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Absolutely, does anyone ever wonder if Bush lost in 2000, where we may be now?

How much money have we spent on Homeland Security, and two War fronts?

[-] 1 points by sage2012 (30) from Hartselle, AL 8 years ago

WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU ASK??? Go to wally-world or just about any where else to buy something and see where it was manufactured. yes the "CREATORS" (such a wonderful word,, has a GOD-LIKE ring to it) created many jobs of late...just not in this country. and that's simply because we all elected A-HOLES that allow our jobs to relocated to slave labor regions of the world. and we as individuals never kick up a fuss...till its our job that's being farmed out next. then we are outraged, now we are ready to take action, how could this be allowed to happen to (me) you ask... how indeed, go ask the steel workers, textile workers, electronics workers, auto workers, go to them and the many others with great big crocodile tears in your eyes... ask them to do something to protect your job (if you still have one) odds are, they will help you , not because you deserve their help, but because they know whats at stake and because its the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by sage2012 (30) from Hartselle, AL 8 years ago

WHERE ARE THE JOBS YOU ASK??? Go to wally-world or just about any where else to buy something and see where it was manufactured. yes the "CREATORS" (such a wonderful word,, has a GOD-LIKE ring to it) created many jobs of late...just not in this country. and that's simply because we all elected A-HOLES that allow our jobs to relocated to slave labor regions of the world. and we as individuals never kick up a fuss...till its our job that's being farmed out next. then we are outraged, now we are ready to take action, how could this be allowed to happen to (me) you ask... how indeed, go ask the steel workers, textile workers, electronics workers, auto workers, go to them and the many others with great big crocodile tears in your eyes... ask them to do something to protect your job (if you still have one) odds are, they will help you , not because you deserve their help, but because they know whats at stake and because its the right thing to do.

[-] 1 points by gtyper (477) from San Antonio, TX 8 years ago

Look - trickle down economics is actually correct. The problem is that it doesn't take into account human greed.

In pure theory, it is a brilliant and reliable mechanism. In actuality, what happens is the growth mentality pushes the profit motive and that means increased revenue while conversely reducing costs.

[-] 1 points by lelekirman (2) 8 years ago

Trickle down economics never worked. Even Ronald Regan saw the iniquities in our tax laws and that the rich were not paying their fair share. He raised capital gains tax to 28% (now at 15%) to level the playing field.

Over the last 25 years, the middle class has shrunk and become more impoverished, and the number of poor people in the US has risen.

Our economy requires a robust, healthy, and well educated, and more prosperous middle class in order for it to be healthy and growing and in order for it to provide opportunities for the poor to become middle class.

The rich need to pay more. It they don't, and the middle class continues to shrink, then in the long run, even the rich will be poorer.

[-] 1 points by lelekirman (2) 8 years ago

Trickle down economics never worked. Even Ronald Regan saw the iniquities in our tax laws and that the rich were not paying their fair share. He raised capital gains tax to 28% (now at 15%) to level the playing field.

Over the last 25 years, the middle class has shrunk and become more impoverished, and the number of poor people in the US has risen.

Our economy requires a robust, healthy, and well educated, and more prosperous middle class in order for it to be healthy and growing and in order for it to provide opportunities for the poor to become middle class.

The rich need to pay more. It they don't, and the middle class continues to shrink, then in the long run, even the rich will be poorer.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Totally agree my friend. We must enlighten the masses!!!

[-] 1 points by antipolitics (127) 8 years ago

We need small business Banks again! We need banks that are willing to make loans... we need tax reform... we need perhaps to adopt a more Isolationist attitude... take care of America's financial situation first... forget about free trade with China etc, let them do their thing by themselves... Wal-Mart get the f* out of politics!

[-] 1 points by Febs (824) from Plymouth Meeting, PA 8 years ago

There are 280 million employed people in the us figuring a jobless rate of 20%. That is still an incredible amount of jobs.

The failure for this recession is located in the bubble creation and the incentivizing of risk by our government.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

Oh yes, this is the lie they want us to believe. There is an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary. Innovation is the true job creator. Think Steven Jobs. How many rich inventors do you know?

This is a short read that someone else passed along to me, which speaks to your point.

http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/occupy_wall_street_a_banker_explains_what_really_happened_to_america/

[-] 1 points by ColoradoDoug (2) from Colorado Springs, CO 8 years ago

The message that is being sent by this movement is confusing to people. It is hard for people in the USA to understand "What is wrong with companies to make a profit?" The issue should not be about "Profit" it should be about jobs and the trade deficit. Businesses, stock holders, and the government must understand that policies that encourage the rampant exodus of jobs sent to other countries is putting the USA in jeopardy. The message of “Occupy Wall Street” should be more focused. Bring jobs back to the US would be a topic that the vast majority of US citizens would understand and be willing to push to businesses, their stock holders and our government.

[-] 1 points by OWSisaherosmovement (10) 8 years ago

We could do it, but how do you feel about radically rising costs?? when the US cost strucure rose due to high home prices, unions, radically increased education costs and costs of living, businesses were faced with high wages in the US, and shipped the jobs away. It's NOT just trade policy. Bring those jobs back, and you'll be paying $120 for that shirt at Wal Mart that now costs $10. That's the "Faustian Choice" to be made.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

There is nothing wrong with companies making a profit. The problem is how wealthy companies and individuals use their money.

1% buys their representation in government, 99% are left with the scraps.
The wealthy OWN the government. Everything the government does is "Of the Wealthy, by the Wealthy and for the Wealthy".

As for bringing back jobs to the US - this is a trade policy issue. Which is certainly a problem. However, trade policy requires the negotiation and cooperation of other countries. We need to get our own "Houses" in order first! (pun intended!)

[-] 1 points by technoviking (484) 8 years ago

let's reverse the question.

if the rich are not job creators, who are the job creators? and when we find them, will the government please give them lots of money?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I think we used to call them as - employers. So obviously, there's some political rhetoric here. But, you know, it depends where we are in the business cycle. Right now, there's a lot of hiring going on, for instance, in health, professional business services. And actually, manufacturing has been one of the bright spots as well.

“Rich People” and Corporations are not job creators. They even somewhat admit this when they say that there aren’t more jobs because there aren’t people spending money.

Why is a company made?

To make money, but to also fill a demand.

If no one wanted what they offer they won’t last, thus the jobs won’t be there.

So who are the real “Job Creators”?

You, me, and anyone else out there that spends money because we want something beyond our needs. (if we just bought within our needs there wouldn’t be enough jobs out there for everyone, hence the high unemployment rate right now)

Does this help Technoviking?

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

Innovation creates jobs. The best thing the government can do is foster an environment that encourages innovation.

Also, consumer confidence is necessary to create demand which will lead to more job creation.

How can any of us have any confidence in an economy whose financial system melted down? Has not been reformed. By a government that does not seek to bring justice to Wall Street. Because it is corrupted to its very core by the 1% of the population which owns it.

Our very democracy is in a shambles. Why should any of us have any confidence?

[-] 1 points by platypusrex256 (7) 8 years ago

the best thing the government can do is get out of the way and stop giving tax dollars to the wrong people.

[-] 1 points by April (3196) 8 years ago

So are you saying that the tax code is the problem? And our democracy is just fine?

[-] 1 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 8 years ago

As Teddy Roosevelt said, "The Government ought not to conduct the business of the country, it ought to regulate it so that is shall be conducted in the interests of the public"

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Protesstoner, I wonder when Teddy uses the word "business" does he generally mean "economy" or are the two, interrelated words business & economy, to be treated separately as it used in this context?

[-] 1 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Since Teddy was known for breaking up the trusts of the guilded age I think he was taking about businesses more specifically. He felt every one should get a square deal and felt that labor -

"It is essential that there should be organization of labor. This is an era of organization. Capital organizes and therefore labor must organize." and further "The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price..." The worship of money and things above all else and at any cost is what is destroying this country

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

Yes, that is interesting, I do agree he likely meant business and that they had to regulated. He attempted to move the Republican Party toward Progressivism, including trust busting and increased regulation of businesses. He did so much for conservation movement, as well, establishing five national parks during his presidency. The more I learn of him the more I like. Teddy was one the greats, no doubt.

[-] 1 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 8 years ago

Many things I like about Teddy, but he was a bit of a warmonger. No one is all good or all evil, we're a mixture. It all depends on the balance.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

How true. I was going to say that earlier. He did have flaws. None of our presidents ever were or ever will be perfect. (Which is good reason why they need to watched carefully.) But, as I look at him, he was a one of kind, and, he truly believed in everything he did. He even stirred up the repug party back then and created his own party, the Bull Moose Party. Definitely would not shy from a fight. Also, just another tidbit, he was the Uncle to Eleanor Roosevelt. The other great president of our times, FDR.

[-] 0 points by Anyong (34) from Jensen Beach, FL 8 years ago

Teddy was a chubby chaser. The inefficient should not tell the efficient what to do.

[-] 2 points by PROTESSTONER (70) from New York, NY 8 years ago

you are a toad, go croak

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 8 years ago

There are jobs. People aren't willing to take jobs they deem beneath them. "Entry Level?" pffft. I have a degree in German Literature!

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

dantes44, there are not enough jobs, this is why we have 9.1% unemployment rate last I checked. Unless your hiding a couple million jobs somewhere your not telling us your statement is false.

The correction: There are not enough Jobs.

[-] 2 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 8 years ago

If that were the case, there would be no help wanted sections in the paper, no online job postings, etc...

Why work at something that I feel is beneath me when the government pays me for 99 weeks of unemployment.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 8 years ago

I'm an engineer, unemployment insurance will only slightly delay my fall to the rocks. I can't stay on unemployment by any means. It's 1/10th of my salary right now. This is ridiculous. I'm college educated with an EE. 20 years experience.

Your suggesting, by your postings, that I don't take the Unemployment insurance (I have paid into all my life), and, instead I should find a job at McDonalds or it's equivalent. So you believe this will be better for me than looking for a job in my field while collecting that UI. Oh no, your right, I can look for that electronics job in my spare time. And if I get an interview I could ask my new boss if he'll allow me the time off. The boss wouldn't mind me looking for other jobs. Right?

dentes44, Thank God we don't live in your world. Personally I find you insulting. UI may be a big sum of money for a youngster still living with his parents paying no rent. I have a family of four to support. I have been laid off before and know exactly how it goes down. If you think it's just a party just go right on going. Some people do care, count me as one of them.

Just to Clarify: UI payments vary from state to state, it is one half the income you made while working. The cap on average is about $350 a week. That means you made at least twice that amount while working. For those in the skilled and professional fields this amount is miniscule. Personally when it happened to me I took money out of my retirement plan 401K to survive along the little I got from UI, but helps. I did get back on my feet. I took a blow but at least I got some support. One thing I wasn't, was lazy. For those who don't know, looking for work is a full time job. I worked hard to be an engineer and I wouldn't mind staying one.