[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Fairy tails rom the left?

Tales, not tails.

As in, the Bible is nothing but a bunch of fairy tales.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So what is your point as far as this thread topic goes?

That you don't completely read all the threads, apparently.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

All of whom get paid an agreed upon wage to do what it is that the "business owner" decides needs to be done which will make a profit.
No "business owner" with an idea, no business. If Americans don't want the jobs in question, he can probably find someone in China who will.
So that "industrial empire" would have built itself by those people without Carnegie? Not likely. There are people who get things done, and people who do what others tell them to. Nothing gets created without the former even if it requires the latter to see it through. The former is much rarer in the world than the latter, which is why it's the former who gets more of the value.
Why aren't all the out of work people NOW, creating empires and building businesses? Because the "doers" in the world are scared by the fact that the guy in charge of things that effect their ability to create doesn't know what he's doing. Otherwise, there would be no unemployment. "Thousands of employees" would just create the jobs. Some people really do put the "cart before the horse" it seems.

If there was not a workforce, prepared by a public education system to follow instructions, and an economic system built from all of us, the business owner would have nobody to "tell what to do." Carnegie's empire would not have been built if he did not work for it, but he was only able to because of the available workers, available resources, and available economic system. He did not make anything from nothing. This is the point; if not for the entire social and economic system, no business could exist. That system is the canvas, and the workers and resources are the paints and brushes. Suggesting that we could have become the largest economy in the world without strong thinkers with great ideas is just as stupid as suggesting that those thinkers simply "thought" things into existence.

Nowhere did I suggest that Carnegie wasn't responsible for building a great industrial empire. But he did not do it alone, and he could not have done it without the system in place at that time. (He could also not do it today, since he made some pretty abusive use of workers through most of his career.) Ideas and drive are crucial, but they are NOT sufficient to make anything. It takes the rest of the social and economic system to build anything, and if we don't keep that in mind, we fall into the trap of giving people credit for doing nothing but thinking.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If there was not a workforce, prepared by a public education system to follow instructions, and an economic system built from all of us, the business owner would have nobody to "tell what to do."

At some place, at some time, a person decided for themselves that they would make a better life for themselves, and in turn others - by starting some kind of business. You can go as far back as the beginning of the United States to see trappers, farmers, merchants, etc., creating opportunities AND TAX REVENUE in order to help build this "economic system." It didn't just rise up because some workers wanted it to, or because the government decided it needed to.

Ford famously said, in regards to the desires of progress for the regular working folks, that if he'd asked them what they wanted, they would have told him a "faster horse." They wouldn't have envisioned a factory turning out automobiles, or iPhones for that matter, without the guy who built the business having the vision. Again, you have to get tax revenue to run the government, and it's either going to come from people running businesses for themselves, or people working for those people who do. Otherwise, you aren't going to have an "education" system like we have today - the money comes from somewhere, and it's not the folks not running businesses or working for those who do.

Much of the work done by the "workforce" to get us to the point we are now was unskilled, manual labor not requiring higher education. Working in factories, etc. We got to where we are today after years of business people creating opportunities for people to work, and revenues for governments to tax that was invested in infrastructure.

You are truly getting the "cart before the horse," and that's the same mistake Obama is making, and continues to make which is causing the economy to stay in the gutter.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

If there was not a workforce, prepared by a public education system to follow instructions, and an economic system built from all of us, the business owner would have nobody to "tell what to do."

They get better returns by seeking those who were home-schooled or schooled in the private sector. The public school system is failing our future job prospects and our global competitiveness.

You and Obama have it backwards. There would be no government if not for we the people.

Carnegie's empire would not have been built if he did not work for it, but he was only able to because of the available workers, available resources, and available economic system.

The government is distorting the labor market, squandering available resources, and destroying our economic system. Why give them more?

It takes the rest of the social and economic system to build anything, and if we don't keep that in mind, we fall into the trap of giving people credit for doing nothing but thinking.

You are no more beholden to the government for infrastructure than you are to the rich people who funded most of it.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They wouldn't have done it if it weren't mutually beneficial.

Mutually is an interesting choice of words.

[OAW]

You know I suspect that if President Obama had simply stated something as self-evident as "No man is an island." .... some of our good friends on the right would still be having a collective conniption fit even though that is fundamentally what he was saying.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

I think conservatives want to consider themselves islands, however. Bootstraps and such.

[Snow-i]

Nah I think its that we're just opposed to redistribution of wealth as it is not a viable solution to any of the problems we are facing today.

[The Final Dakar]

What problems is redistribution of wealth viable for?

[subego]

Yeah. I'm not exactly a fan of redistribution of wealth, but saying it's not a viable solution for any problem which faces us is overstating the case.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think conservatives want to consider themselves islands, however. Bootstraps and such.

Indeed. But if they were to put the blind ideology aside for a second they would see that the true expression of that mentality is anarchy. Which is a far cry from the constitutional, democratic republic they claim to revere. It should be quite apparent to anyone who even remotely follows politics that the further to the right one goes a "limited government" mentality becomes an "anti-government" mentality. And I also contend that the center of gravity of the modern day GOP has decidedly shifted further to the right. President Obama was only saying that in a society such as ours there is a role for both the private sector and the public sector to play. Just as government can't provide everything for a modern society to prosper ... neither can private business. It is this notion on the right that anything done in the public sector (outside of the military) is by definition, inherently "bad" that he was addressing. You hear it all day everyday on Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the conservative blogosphere. Yeah, you risked your (or more likely somebody else's) capital and opened up a business ... say a retail store. But you did not build that road and that sewage system and those traffic lights on your own so that your customers can reach your store and part with some of their hard earned dollars to your financial benefit.

Quite frankly, this entire discussion is silly. Because what President Obama said ... and what I just reiterated ... is self-evident. Which is why you don't see our conservative compatriots contending with what the man actually said. Instead, they have their panties all in a bunch over a clear, brain dead obvious distortion of his words. This notion being bandied about that President Obama was claiming that the government was responsible for the success of a private enterprise is simply retarded. Yeah I said it! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given the context of speech. And allow me to go here because I really do think it's relevant. I have a Sirius-XM radio in my car and I've been a big fan of the POTUS channel since the 2008 election cycle. 9 times out of 10 that's what I listen to on my daily commute. And why do I like it? Because it gives you "unfiltered audio" where you can hear an ENTIRE SPEECH ... or the ENTIRE PRESS CONFERENCE ... from whoever the politician may be... Democrat, GOP, or otherwise. As opposed to all that "soundbite" bullsh*t that you see on Fox News and MSNBC. In any event, my point here is that this speech that our good friends on the right are having this collective conniption fit about is a standard stump speech that President Obama has delivered NUMEROUS times over the last several weeks. I know what I'm talking about because I've listened to it myself on more than one occasion! President Obama has made this same statement REPEATEDLY and not a single protest about it from the right until now ... UNTIL THIS WEEK when the Romney campaign is reeling from the controversy over when he actually left Bain Capital, his offshore accounts, and his refusal to release more than 2 years worth of tax returns. Trying to change the subject much? I mean don't get me wrong. This type of foolishness just comes with the territory in the midst of a presidential election cycle. But oh yeah ... I peep game.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Indeed. But if they were to put the blind ideology aside for a second they would see that the true expression of that mentality is anarchy. Which is a far cry from the constitutional, democratic republic they claim to revere. It should be quite apparent to anyone who even remotely follows politics that the further to the right one goes a "limited government" mentality becomes an "anti-government" mentality. And I also contend that the center of gravity of the modern day GOP has decidedly shifted further to the right. President Obama was only saying that in a society such as ours there is a role for both the private sector and the public sector to play. Just as government can't provide everything for a modern society to prosper ... neither can private business. It is this notion on the right that anything done in the public sector (outside of the military) is by definition, inherently "bad" that he was addressing. You hear it all day everyday on Fox News, right-wing talk radio, and the conservative blogosphere. Yeah, you risked your (or more likely somebody else's) capital and opened up a business ... say a retail store. But you did not build that road and that sewage system and those traffic lights on your own so that your customers can reach your store and part with some of their hard earned dollars to your financial benefit.
Quite frankly, this entire discussion is silly. Because what President Obama said ... and what I just reiterated ... is self-evident. Which is why you don't see our conservative compatriots contending with what the man actually said. Instead, they have their panties all in a bunch over a clear, brain dead obvious distortion of his words. This notion being bandied about that President Obama was claiming that the government was responsible for the success of a private enterprise is simply retarded. Yeah I said it! It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever given the context of speech. And allow me to go here because I really do think it's relevant. I have a Sirius-XM radio in my car and I've been a big fan of the POTUS channel since the 2008 election cycle. 9 times out of 10 that's what I listen to on my daily commute. And why do I like it? Because it gives you "unfiltered audio" where you can hear an ENTIRE SPEECH ... or the ENTIRE PRESS CONFERENCE ... from whoever the politician may be... Democrat, GOP, or otherwise. As opposed to all that "soundbite" bullsh*t that you see on Fox News and MSNBC. In any event, my point here is that this speech that our good friends on the right are having this collective conniption fit about is a standard stump speech that President Obama has delivered NUMEROUS times over the last several weeks. I know what I'm talking about because I've listened to it myself on more than one occasion! President Obama has made this same statement REPEATEDLY and not a single protest about it from the right until now ... UNTIL THIS WEEK when the Romney campaign is reeling from the controversy over when he actually left Bain Capital, his offshore accounts, and his refusal to release more than 2 years worth of tax returns. Trying to change the subject much? I mean don't get me wrong. This type of foolishness just comes with the territory in the midst of a presidential election cycle. But oh yeah ... I peep game.
OAW

God damn that's a lot of text. Pro tip: The new formatting requires a lot more care to be taken when creating long posts.

Anarchy is to the true right expression of that mentality is to socialism is the true left expression of their mentality. Which is to say neither side is that asinine (hi libertarians), but no one seems to be able to parse between extremism and reasonable views. I don't care (too much) about people who misquote or misunderstand Obama, because by and large these types didn't have an open mind to begin with and weren't voting for him (Like the idiots who believe Romney likes firing people).

[Chongo]

Tweeted by Jon Lovitz

[The Final Dakar]

Doesn't even need the last line. It never made any sense that he was awarded it. Just felt like a middle finger directed at Bush.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Doesn't even need the last line. It never made any sense that he was awarded it. Just felt like a middle finger directed at Bush.

It depends on how you look at it. The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded based on "achievements" or "aspirations". Clearly the former wasn't the case. And the latter certainly isn't new phenomenon with Obama. That being said, while I can understand if he thought it might be rude or disrespectful to decline it, I personally thought he should have done so anyway. If for no other reason than it put his legacy in an awkward box of being given such an award while also being one of the most militarily aggressive US Presidents in modern history.

OAW

[stupendousman]

I'm guessing he believes he deserves it. He's spent his whole life being told that because he can be charismatic and looks and sounds good when speaking, that he can do no wrong. It doesn't matter if he doesn't have the experience or knowledge to be a good President (or a Nobel prize winner), he believes he deserves it because he's never lived in a world where he's really never had to earn what's coming to him. It's been given to him for the most part.

His comments in regards to business shows a complete lack of understanding of how much effort true earned success costs, and why that effort deserves the rewards it does. How could he when he's hardly had to engage in this mentality in his personal life? Since he's been able to get by on a cult of personality, he believes that others do the same and that unlike him, they don't deserve that kind of free ride.

Any way you try to parse his words, it's clear that he has a complete lack of understanding in regards to capitalism and economics. That's scary.

[besson3c]

You know, I think I've officially given up on trying to understand how people can find stuff like this reasonable.

It ultimately doesn't matter anyway as far as the outcome of this election.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

What problems is redistribution of wealth viable for?

If I ever come across one I'll let you know.

[pottymouth]

I agree with President Obama 100%.

How could any true patriot argue that they don't owe credit to the country that made their success possible? I can't even begin to put into words how glad I am to have been born to the US. I love my country and I am grateful for all of the advantages that come with US citizenship. Tell me how much it will cost to ensure that these advantages are there for the next generation, what it will take to keep my fellow Americans healthy and what our schools need to educate our children and I will happily pay my dues.

The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You know, I think I've officially given up on trying to understand how people can find stuff like this reasonable.

It ultimately doesn't matter anyway as far as the outcome of this election.

I think several million small and medium business owners would disagree with you.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I think several million small and medium business owners would disagree with you.

The Republican party doesn't give a single crap about small and medium business owners, and they never have.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

I agree with President Obama 100%.
How could any true patriot argue that they don't owe credit to the country that made their success possible? I can't even begin to put into words how glad I am to have been born to the US. I love my country and I am grateful for all of the advantages that come with US citizenship.

Government does not equal country.

Citizens, including business owners and their employees comprise the country. The government is simply a steward of essential services. Something this administration has apparently forgotten.

Tell me how much it will cost to ensure that these advantages are there for the next generation, what it will take to keep my fellow Americans healthy and what our schools need to educate our children and I will happily pay my dues.
The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

With this direction, it will cost you those very advantages. They weren't built this way and they surely won't be sustained this way. Hence the conservative movement. To conserve the very mechanisms that have given you the opportunities you grew up with, so maybe your children will contribute to society.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Government does not equal country.
Citizens, including business owners and their employees comprise the country. The government is simply a steward of essential services. Something this administration has apparently forgotten.
With this direction, it will cost you those very advantages. They weren't built this way and they surely won't be sustained this way. Hence the conservative movement. To conserve the very mechanisms that have given you the opportunities you grew up with, so maybe your children will contribute to society.

By conserving, you mean by getting rid of stuff like public education and voter rights?

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Government does not equal country.
Citizens, including business owners and their employees comprise the country. The government is simply a steward of essential services. Something this administration and every administration, republican or democrat, in the last 30 years has apparently forgotten.

There I fixed that for you, also add in the Romney administration if by some chance he's elected, because the Republicans care about small government as much as the democrats do, which is to say not at all.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Any way you try to parse his words, it's clear that he has a complete lack of understanding in regards to capitalism and economics. That's scary.

Anyone who thinks tax cuts creates jobs doesn't understand economics.

Tax cuts starting with Pres. Reagan have manage to accelerate our national debt from under $1 trillion to over $15 trillion.

Pres. Reagan alone manage to triple the national debt.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

I agree with President Obama 100%.
How could any true patriot argue that they don't owe credit to the country that made their success possible? I can't even begin to put into words how glad I am to have been born to the US. I love my country and I am grateful for all of the advantages that come with US citizenship. Tell me how much it will cost to ensure that these advantages are there for the next generation, what it will take to keep my fellow Americans healthy and what our schools need to educate our children and I will happily pay my dues.
The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

Im even more grateful being born in Canada and the many more advantages that come with it

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

Anyone who thinks tax cuts creates jobs doesn't understand economics.

It doesn't create them.

However, if I'm a entrepreneur and I have more money to invest and there is less penalty for succeeding, why wouldn't I?

In such a case, everyone wins.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

Greetings. Take a moment to review our Pol/War Lounge rules. They help keep things from getting out of hand -- including personal attacks against each other.

http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/169630/the-creed-rules-of-the-fight-er-political-lounge-v1-45

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

It doesn't create them.
However, if I'm a entrepreneur and I have more money to invest and there is less penalty for succeeding, why wouldn't I?
In such a case, everyone wins.

If there is no demand and/or growth potential, I would not invest a dime just because I have the money.

I would take the tax cut money and invest in China.

In such a case, China wins.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

I agree with President Obama 100%.
How could any true patriot argue that they don't owe credit to the country that made their success possible? I can't even begin to put into words how glad I am to have been born to the US. I love my country and I am grateful for all of the advantages that come with US citizenship. Tell me how much it will cost to ensure that these advantages are there for the next generation, what it will take to keep my fellow Americans healthy and what our schools need to educate our children and I will happily pay my dues.
The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

It's not about "owing credit to the country". It's, who is "the country" to you? Is it one another or a centralized authority? I'm sorry I cannot take your rebuke of greed seriously while reading you describe the US as little more than a meal ticket. If you wanna give, give. Don't sit around waiting for some government bureaucracy to do it for you.

How much will it cost? Let me see if I can break this down for you; at the current rate of spending, the total amount of tax dollars to be collected by the proposed hikes on families over $250k a year may run the government two weeks. This is on top of what the rest of us are paying into the system. The answer is, too much and this is why I disagree with President Obama.

There's got to be a better way. You should go about reading to see if anyone has other ideas.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by sek929 

   There I fixed that for you, also add in the Romney administration if by some chance he's elected, because the Republicans care about small government as much as the democrats do, which is to say not at all.

Unfortunately, I agree with you 100%.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by hyteckit 

If there is no demand and/or growth potential, I would not invest a dime just because I have the money.
I would take the tax cut money and invest in China.
In such a case, China wins.

This would only likely be the case if the government is making it unnecessarily difficult to do business in the United States, as it currently is.

Again, higher cost of doing business and greater regulations will hurt the economy, as it has:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/fox-news-poll-nearly-two-thirds-voters-say-government-is-problem/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Fox_News_poll%3A_Nearly_two-thirds_of_voters_say_government_is_the_problem

I'd already explained that reasonable tax policy isn't the only thing that drives the economy and helps grease the wheels for growth. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to do all the stuff which makes it difficult, in the middle of a recession. That's a sure recipe for failure, and advice that this is the case has been ignored for the past 4 years and we now see the results.

[Waragainstsleep]

A fox news poll says the (democrat) government is to blame? I defy anyone to find me a poll on any subject that was less worthwhile taking.

Why is it that (typically republicans) can't see anything wrong with their idea that [charitable] donations should be left to the individual instead of being mandated by government? Its entirely possible that you give more that way in total (at least on paper), but you are getting to choose where it goes by virtue of you being rich. Political power in exchange for wealth (most of which probably gets written off against tax or PR budgets anyway). Thats not how democracy (which you claim to cherish) is supposed to work.
Surely you can see how its fairer for a certain amount of wealth to be redistributed by a government that like it or not was elected by everyone to use where it is needed most?

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

A fox news poll says the (democrat) government is to blame? I defy anyone to find me a poll on any subject that was less worthwhile taking.

Why? Isn't it worthwhile to figure out whether or not the American people feel that current policies are helping or hurting? I guarantee you that the Obama campaign feels this is a worthwhile subject to know. Right now, it's probably his biggest worry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html?_r=1

Why is it that (typically republicans) can't see anything wrong with their idea that [charitable] donations should be left to the individual instead of being mandated by government?

A. Because the government is much less capable of efficiently dispersing the funds without mountains of financial overhead and waste.
B. It's not the job of the government to be a charity. At least that was never the intention of any of the founders I can ever find.
C. It stops being "charity" when it's forced. It's a tax and wealth redistribution.

Its entirely possible that you give more that way in total (at least on paper), but you are getting to choose where it goes by virtue of you being rich. Political power in exchange for wealth (most of which probably gets written off against tax or PR budgets anyway). Thats not how democracy (which you claim to cherish) is supposed to work.

The money you earn isn't fodder for "democracy." It's yours. There is no requirement for there to be an "exchange of wealth." That's a component of socialism, not the system our founders set up.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

If I ever come across one I'll let you know.

Kinda recolors your statement, doesn't it?

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This would only likely be the case if the government is making it unnecessarily difficult to do business in the United States, as it currently is.
Again, higher cost of doing business and greater regulations will hurt the economy, as it has:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/fox-news-poll-nearly-two-thirds-voters-say-government-is-problem/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Fox_News_poll%3A_Nearly_two-thirds_of_voters_say_government_is_the_problem
I'd already explained that reasonable tax policy isn't the only thing that drives the economy and helps grease the wheels for growth. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to do all the stuff which makes it difficult, in the middle of a recession. That's a sure recipe for failure, and advice that this is the case has been ignored for the past 4 years and we now see the results.

BS, at the end of the day its how much disposable income people have to spend on businesses that make or break things. If the consumers have no extra money to spend or are in fear of losing there job they wont spend. No spending consumers means business not making money.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Kinda recolors your statement, doesn't it?

How so? IMO redistribution of wealth diminishes value created in a society, and ultimately hurts everyone. With no incentive, people will not work hard. Those that do will see diminishing returns on their effort and those that don't are rewarded for it.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

Why? Isn't it worthwhile to figure out whether or not the American people feel that current policies are helping or hurting? I guarantee you that the Obama campaign feels this is a worthwhile subject to know. Right now, it's probably his biggest worry.

You miss my point. Even I know that Fox News viewers aren't going to give you a decent representation of the american people. You need to get the opinions across the political spectrum. Bible-thumping rednecks should not be allowed to make decisions for the rest of America. Fox News viewers more than any other strike me as the sort of people who will hurt exactly as much as Fox News tells them they should.

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html?_r=1
A. Because the government is much less capable of efficiently dispersing the funds without mountains of financial overhead and waste.
B. It's not the job of the government to be a charity. At least that was never the intention of any of the founders I can ever find.
C. It stops being "charity" when it's forced. It's a tax and wealth redistribution.
The money you earn isn't fodder for "democracy." It's yours. There is no requirement for there to be an "exchange of wealth." That's a component of socialism, not the system our founders set up.

You may think that donating to Oxfam or other charities won't see a hefty proportion of your donations vanish into admin costs and other overheads but you'd be wrong. I put charitable in brackets because I agree with the first sentence of point C.

However misguided it has become, the motivation behind the redistribution of wealth comes from (increasing less) common human decency and wanting to help your fellow man in times of hardship. Funny how these values which I believe you consider to be the dominion of Christians or at least religious people you now say were not a consideration for your founders who I believe I have heard you claim were staunchly religious. I don't really want to switch the focus to that debate, I'm just saying.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How so? IMO redistribution of wealth diminishes value created in a society, and ultimately hurts everyone. With no incentive, people will not work hard. Those that do will see diminishing returns on their effort and those that don't are rewarded for it.

I believe that welfare in the developed world goes too far and that this is detrimental to society, but whenever I hear opinions like yours they never seem to include any provision for people who are genuine hard workers and need some support to get them back on their feet due to circumstances beyond their control. Unless you really believe that people who suffer such misfortune should be abandoned to die along with the lazy ones, please try to temper your position with some suggestion of how to help those who deserve help when they need it.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

You miss my point. Even I know that Fox News viewers aren't going to give you a decent representation of the american people. You need to get the opinions across the political spectrum. Bible-thumping rednecks should not be allowed to make decisions for the rest of America. Fox News viewers more than any other strike me as the sort of people who will hurt exactly as much as Fox News tells them they should.

It wasn't just a poll of Fox News viewers. It was a random poll of all registered voters.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by Athens 

BS, at the end of the day its how much disposable income people have to spend on businesses that make or break things. If the consumers have no extra money to spend or are in fear of losing there job they wont spend. No spending consumers means business not making money.

The people at Apple computer likely have disposable income. Their employer is expanding, hiring and producing. People with jobs have disposable income. Businesses expand when they see that the climate is right - that the burdens to enter into expansion in comparison with the payout, is low. At a time when the government is clogging the economy with additional taxes, red tape and regulations, a business is less likely to decide to expand and they aren't going to hire due to the environment being uncertain. Apple goes ahead because they have a virtually unstoppable product line - they don't have to worry so much about the risk. Most businesses don't have that, thus this administrations terrible employment record.

More "cart before the horse" stuff here...

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

How so?

"...we're just opposed to redistribution of wealth as it is not a viable solution to any of the problems we are facing today" implies there's a time and a place for it. Your follow up statement clarifies that you don't think there's a time and a place for it.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

The people at Apple computer likely have disposable income. Their employer is expanding, hiring and producing. People with jobs have disposable income. Businesses expand when they see that the climate is right - that the burdens to enter into expansion in comparison with the payout, is low. At a time when the government is clogging the economy with additional taxes, red tape and regulations, a business is less likely to decide to expand and they aren't going to hire due to the environment being uncertain. Apple goes ahead because they have a virtually unstoppable product line - they don't have to worry so much about the risk. Most businesses don't have that, thus this administrations terrible employment record.
More "cart before the horse" stuff here...

The conditions are right to expand when there is money to be made. If there is no money to be made the conditions are not right. Taxes have no affect on this, higher or lower. If the US government dropped all taxes on businesses tomorrow do you think business would expand with the exact same number of customers. Not a chance. It just goes into profits. Do you think a business bursting at the seems and unable to keep up with product demand is not going to expand because they pay high taxes? Not a chance they will expand because they have the business to require it.

High business taxes affect only a small number of Mobile industries. The Movie industry is a perfect example of that so is the gaming industry. They can operate anywhere so a low tax market is going to attract them for savings. But the taxes do not affect any service or resource based businesses. The resources dictate where the business operates. The customers dictate where service businesses locate. This is why targeted tax cuts are much more effective then blanket tax cuts. The industries that are mobile which Taxes do affect should be targeted for incentives to setup shop and stay. The rest which are not like that, the McDonald's, the Walmart's, the Safeway's, The Movie theaters, the Car Dealerships, the Sears and so on shouldn't get a tax break.

Apples head office and design would be considered mobile, in that it can go anywhere to conduct business. The retail part of Apple, the stores they are not mobile, they will go where customer demand makes it viable.

[screener]

Originally Posted by pottymouth 

The rest of you ungrateful, selfish pigs can go screw.

Hallelujah.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Greetings. Take a moment to review our Pol/War Lounge rules. They help keep things from getting out of hand -- including personal attacks against each other.
http://forums.macnn.com/0/forum/169630/the-creed-rules-of-the-fight-er-political-lounge-v1-45

Picky picky.
He didn't attack an individual.
Can you say Hallelujah.

[hyteckit]

Originally Posted by stupendousman 

This would only likely be the case if the government is making it unnecessarily difficult to do business in the United States, as it currently is.
Again, higher cost of doing business and greater regulations will hurt the economy, as it has:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/18/fox-news-poll-nearly-two-thirds-voters-say-government-is-problem/?cmpid=cmty_fb_Fox_News_poll%3A_Nearly_two-thirds_of_voters_say_government_is_the_problem
I'd already explained that reasonable tax policy isn't the only thing that drives the economy and helps grease the wheels for growth. Unfortunately, Obama has chosen to do all the stuff which makes it difficult, in the middle of a recession. That's a sure recipe for failure, and advice that this is the case has been ignored for the past 4 years and we now see the results.

So? Most Americans say the Bush tax cuts should end altogether or for those making over $250,000 or more annually.

From your own link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/us/politics/poll-shows-economic-fears-undercutting-obama-support.html?hp

A plurality of Americans, 49 percent, agree with Mr. Obama’s assertion that the Bush-era tax cuts should continue on adjusted gross annual income of $250,000 and less. More than a quarter say the cuts should stay in place for all income groups; 17 percent say they should expire altogether.

[OAW]

I find it quite curious how many of our good friends on the right view social programs as "wealth redistribution" ... yet they don't see it that way for military spending .... even though BOTH are paid for via tax dollars. Even more curious considering the fact that the amount of money going into the pockets of private sector defense contractors absolutely dwarfs the amount of money going into the pockets of people receiving some sort of government assistance.

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I find it quite curious how many of our good friends on the right view social programs as "wealth redistribution" ... yet they don't see it that way for military spending .... even though BOTH are paid for via tax dollars. Even more curious considering the fact that the amount of money going into the pockets of private sector defense contractors absolutely dwarfs the amount of money going into the pockets of people receiving some sort of government assistance.

OAW

It's not curious at all, it's because of the moral hazard. If the money goes into a hole, then no one is motivated to waste it. But if the money goes into the pockets of the people who voted for it to go there, then that creates a motivation to double-down on the same practice and expand it as much as possible, regardless of productivity or waste. To you it sounds like they're saying "you can only tax me as long as it doesn't help anyone," but there's really a sound logical basis for saying that. Any time the cause of an inefficiency directly benefits from that inefficiency, it creates a moral hazard which leads to expansion of that inefficiency. That's why the right is more concerned about terrorism than global warming, because global warming doesn't create a moral hazard, while being soft on terrorism does.

Yes, war spending does make some people rich, but the number of people is far less (conceptually it's the ratio between employees and customers), and the votes of the actual people profiting (contractors) is less able to directly influence elections than the number of people that could directly profit from social programs like free healthcare and other hand-outs.

[Athens]

Its not the social services that are the problem per say, its the private and public entities that built up around it that need it to continue as it is. A lot of jobs and businesses are based around the social services and all of them don't want to see any real reforms that cut them out of the free cash they get.