Obama Literary Agent 1991 Booklet: "Obama born in Kenya"

[sirs]

And yet, let's placate Xo's flawed conclusion for a moment......say they aren't spending......ITS THEIR MONEY.  They can spend it or not spend it on anything they want.  It's not the Government's job to make people spend money or lose it.  The founders would be rolling in their graves, if that became the guiding function of Government.  Of course, they already are with Obamination Care

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.

If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".

[sirs]

It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.

EVERYONE spends their money, both fat and skinny, both rich and poor

If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".

Doesn't matter....ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS WHAT ANYONE DOES WITH THEIR MONEY, SO LONG AS ITS LEGAL.......IT'S THEIR MONEY.  IF THEY WANT MORE, ALL THE POWER TO THEM......AS LONG AS ITS LEGAL

[Xavier_Onassis]

All Power to the Oliigarchs, cries sirs Huzzah! Huzzah!

[sirs]

Close....ALL POWER TO WHAT HAS MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT, FREEDOM, AND EVERYONE KEEPING AS MUCH AS WHAT THEY'VE EARNED.  Huzzah! Huzzah!


But so notable, how you've been following this thread, responding when no question has been posed, but when a direct serious question is asked of you, you're no where to be found.  Quite illuminating 

[Plane]

It is the fatcats that are not spending their money.

If you are making $22 million a year, there is no way that your life could be an improvement over someone making 20% less. They just do not know the meaning of "enough".

You might be speaking of someone who in order to make his business expand 15% will hire thirty more people.
Not because he needs the extra income , more like he likes running a more leading and successfull company.

Would you like him better if he decided his company was large enough and didn't try to expand it?

Why did you hate those thirty guys?

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is a rather fanciful speculation. It is rather like saying that Jesse James robbed from the rich so he could give to the poor.

The reality if that he and his gang robbed from anyone who had it and divvied the spoils up among themselves.

Can you name the thirty guys Romney hired as a result of not paying that 20% more, so I can perhaps hate them personally?

Next you will be telling us that Mitt Romney should be spared from pay ANY taxes at all, so he can build a car elevator in all his homes, which of course will mean that he will have to hire elevator contractors and workers to build them.

[Plane]

I think it is silly for you to call this fancifull.

Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.

It matters not a whit whether the employer is generous or stingy, either way they would hire the labor and skill that they needed to run and expand the business.

However much the government takes from the public more than it absolutely must , the public isw cheated just that much.

Even if the government were really as generous as it claims to be and was hiring the maximum and giving away as much as possible , just the unavoidable waste involved in transduction garuntees that the money will be less efectively put to serving the people than it would be if left in the peoples hands.

Who exactly are we speaking of? The people who are qualified and usefull but who are turned away from being hired, also all the people who are hired but whose wages are depressed by the competition.

Perhaps there will be another new industry created by space exploration, I don't think we can depend on it , but perhaps.

Will we allow the government to piss away all the new work the way we did the computer and software industrys?

[sirs]

Plane is kinda touching on the BIGGEST problem when it comes to Government vs Private sector function.  It's not the Government's money.  Its money they've taken via taxes, so they're functioning using other people's money. 

And unfortunately, when it comes to human nature, people just aren't the same stewards of someone else's money, than they are of their own.  That's why fraud, waste, and abuse are far more rampant in Government programs, compared to the Private sector.  It's also why both indentification of those problems take so long to come to light, not to mention any "fix".  There's just not the same dedicated function, when its not your money you're wasting, using. 

Companies that have voluntary investers & stock holders, which can include their own employees, have an intimate need to make things work, or else people leave, investers pull their cash, profits go down, companies go under.  There's a stake involved....literally survival of the company/business.  It's GENERALLY why bad employees are fired on the spot, good products are removed for better products, and defective products are recalled for corrected ones. 

Yes, OCCASIONALLY some business will try to push a really cheap unsafe product, and they do so at their risk of lawsuit, if not worse.  And THAT's where Government can play its more appropriate role in oversight and some regulation.  But bottom line is that the private sector, by both design, and human nature, is far more likely to produce better products, better outcomes, with greater efficiency, and less money, than anything the government could ever dream of approaching

[Xavier_Onassis]

Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.

====================================================
Not true. That is like saying that every time you spend $5.95 on something other than a KFG chicken dinner, you are saving a chicken's life.

Perhaps that equivalent annual wage was used to do buy a robot that did the work of three men (because it doesn't need sleep).
The fact is the person not taxed does NOT always, or even most of the time spend that money on a new job.
It is fantasy to think that this happens.

All businesses are not infinitely expandable, either. At some point, people will not eat Screaming Yellow Zonkers or Cheesy Poofs.

What we are into now is not the end of industrial America. It is the beginning of robotic Industrial America, and unemployment is NOT because of Obama or taxes at all. Unemployment exists when a person is replaced by a robot.

The owners of the robots are not inclined to share their products or their money with anyone else. Of course, that means that if they are selling consumer products, there is a dwindling consumer base.

If in 1955 it took the equivalent of 50 man hours to build a car, the men who built that car would get paid, and could buy a car every several years. In 2012, it requires only 7 man hours, then only about 1/7th the cars will be bought by those who make them.Of course, it is more complex than that, but if consumers are not being paid to work, then they cannot afford to consume.

[sirs]

Says Mr Obamacare-is-only-1000pages

[Plane]

Every time that a person or business is taxed the equivelent of a persons wage, that is exactly one job eliminated.

====================================================
Not true. That is like saying that every time you spend $5.95 on something other than a KFG chicken dinner, you are saving a chicken's life.

Perhaps that equivalent annual wage was used to do buy a robot that did the work of three men (because it doesn't need sleep).
The fact is the person not taxed does NOT always, or even most of the time spend that money on a new job.
It is fantasy to think that this happens.

All businesses are not infinitely expandable, either. At some point, people will not eat Screaming Yellow Zonkers or Cheesy Poofs.

What we are into now is not the end of industrial America. It is the beginning of robotic Industrial America, and unemployment is NOT because of Obama or taxes at all. Unemployment exists when a person is replaced by a robot.

The owners of the robots are not inclined to share their products or their money with anyone else. Of course, that means that if they are selling consumer products, there is a dwindling consumer base.

If in 1955 it took the equivalent of 50 man hours to build a car, the men who built that car would get paid, and could buy a car every several years. In 2012, it requires only 7 man hours, then only about 1/7th the cars will be bought by those who make them.Of course, it is more complex than that, but if consumers are not being paid to work, then they cannot afford to consume.

If a worker is needed but the money to hire him is taken as taxes that job is exactly eliminated.
It might really prevent KFC from buying some chicken carcasses if the customers had tight money and had to buy the smaller meals.
Your example works fine, thank you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No, it doesn't. Not unless all KFC franchisees are compelled to invest in expanding that particular business. And they aren't. Most aren't compelled in any way more than you are to dine with the Colonel. Many would diversify. Perhaps they would buy real estate and hold it until someone wanted to buy it from them at a profit.

The compulsion to expand a KFC franchise is not the Law of Gravity, neither is the compulsion to dine with the Colonel.

[Plane]

No, it doesn't. Not unless all KFC franchisees are compelled to invest in expanding that particular business. And they aren't. Most aren't compelled in any way more than you are to dine with the Colonel. Many would diversify. Perhaps they would buy real estate and hold it until someone wanted to buy it from them at a profit.

The compulsion to expand a KFC franchise is not the Law of Gravity, neither is the compulsion to dine with the Colonel.

I don't get your point.

Do you mean that the effect is distributited and no particular chicken is saved?

I suppose so , it is hard to show most of the time that a tax increase resulted in a certain particular job loss, but without question if there is less money availible for hireing there will consequently be less hireing.

There is a law of Gravity involved, check out Darwin , natural selection is a general principal , applicable in many situations.

Some businesses do grow and some do not, the ones that do overtake those that dont, the ones that want to grow count for maor than the ones that want to stay small.

It is legitamate for a small business , run by Mom and Pop to decide for reaqsons of their own to stay small, but there is nothing Mom and Pop can do to prevent the hireing at Wallmart of all the workers that Mom aNd Pop refuse to. But ,.... The  Congress can take the wages of thousands away from Wall Mart and as a direct consequence Wall Mart hires just exactly that number fewer.

Even if you can't name particular people not hired , does not mean they are not real people .

[Xavier_Onassis]

If a person has a smaller tax bill, he can do whatever he wishes with the money6 thus obtained, and not all opf tghe options involve hiring anyone to do anything.

You are assuming that hiring more workers is the inevitable result of lower taxes. It is not.