published Thursday, October 7th, 2010

Trickle Down

about Clay Bennett...

The son of a career army officer, Bennett led a nomadic life, attending ten different schools before graduating in 1980 from the University of North Alabama with degrees in Art and History. After brief stints as a staff artist at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and the Fayetteville (NC) Times, he went on to serve as the editorial cartoonist for the St. Petersburg Times (1981-1994) and The Christian Science Monitor (1997-2007), before joining the staff of the ...

170
Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.
OllieH said...

Great cartoon, Clay.

The standard Republican promise of riches with the same predictable results. I guess since it's worked so badly in the past it's high time we tried it again!

October 7, 2010 at 12:21 a.m.
alprova said...

Newt Gingrich is up to his old tricks, by creating this election's catch phrase. Republican candidates are being advised to make the election about "paychecks versus food stamps."

He has been circulating a memo to candidates urging them to emphasize the words, "job creation," and that Republicans will bring "paychecks" to the people. Voting for Democrats will result in increased "joblessness and reliance on government assistance," in the form of "food stamps."

Gingrich's memo states; "This year, the House Republican's Pledge to America has set the stage for a powerful, symbolic closing argument for candidates seeking to unseat the left-wing, big spending, job killing Democrats -- paychecks versus food stamps."

Let's talk about paychecks. Two-thirds of Americans in this nation want to see the minimum wage increased to that of a living wage. Recently, several Republicans who were asked what the current minimum wage was, couldn't cite it. Michael Steele, the Republican Party Chair, was one of them.

Several Republicans have been calling for the minimum wage to be reduced or outlawed altogether. What does this do in terms of offering "paychecks" for Americans?

Lest we not forget that it was the Republicans who worked hard to prevent unemployment benefits from being extended to those out of work.

Chattanooga's own Zack Wamp, made the statement that extending unemployment benefits "is creating a culture of dependence which we do not need. We want people out there scraping and clawing and looking for work and not just sitting back waiting. And so we've got to not allow any more mandates."

Republicans are scraping and clawing for extended tax cuts for those who make more than $200,000 a year, under the guise that these are the people who create jobs. Really?

For a decade, these people have been enjoying those Republican spawned tax cuts, and yet, more jobs than ever disappeared during those ten years. Gingrich knows it too. Notice he refers to the 1990's, and not the 2000's?

What else is wrong with Gingrich's claims? Taxes went UP during the 90's, tremendously. He, himself claims that jobs were created during that same period of time, which is correct. It would be more correct to state that higher taxes resulted in more jobs.

But you'll never hear a Republican make that statement, no matter how true it is.

October 7, 2010 at 1:32 a.m.
Francis said...

the bootlicker strikes again.

and trickle up economics is better?

when was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job? ....morons.

you wacko liberals hatred for those who succeed and your love of taxation is nauseating.

everyone is sick of your class envy card.

now that you've had control of the white house and congress....we've seen enough...

leave us alone.

October 7, 2010 at 2:32 a.m.
dougmusn said...

Francis:

Q: "when was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job?"

A: Each and every day.

The money a poor person receives will be almost immediately SPENT. A dollar spent in the community turns over up to twelve times before it stops moving--poor person buys food, grocer buys a haircut, barber buys gasoline, etc...

A rich's man's dollar is SAVED and thereby largely locked up.

The best method for economic stimulus among eleven current choices turns out to be extension of unemployment benefits; the worst: tax cuts for the rich.

My view on taxes is the same as Oliver Wendell Holmes: "I enjoy paying taxes. With them, I buy civilization."

October 7, 2010 at 5:33 a.m.
hambone said...

The record of Trickle Down stands for its self. How Francis or anyone else can see it any different is just Selective Memory!!

October 7, 2010 at 6:04 a.m.
anniebelle said...

francis s. gets on here everyday with his worn out class envy card. ZZZZZZZZZZZZ. I hope you're left alone all right, out wandering in the wilderness of slogans and bumper stickers with the porcine uber rich of this country.

October 7, 2010 at 6:06 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Francis, how about discussing the actual points made in alprova's post, rather than just jeering?

October 7, 2010 at 7:08 a.m.
rolando said...

Seven to one against reason...and counting. That's about par for this forum.

Hang in there, Francis.

October 7, 2010 at 7:23 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

OK, how about YOU addressing the actual points in alprova's post, rolando?

October 7, 2010 at 7:31 a.m.
woody said...

Well, I think I'll choose not to jump on the "Let's Gang Up on Francis" bandwagon this morning..there is a lot of day left, you know...

However, (and isn't there almost always a however or a but, or some sort of exception, especially in Francis' case)giving the "Devil" his due, I would just as soon spend my time lambasting the real culprit here..yes, the one who actually started this whole "Trickle Down" concept.

Ronald "He who couldn't act his way out of a paper bag, and yet a majority of a supposedly sane and informed people actually elected him president--twice" Reagan.

I mean..really...Reagan made Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon look like he was actually sincere, by comparison. And please don't get me started on Gerald "The Stumble King" Ford, who likely could have been a good president if he just hadn't exempted his predecessor from the law of the land.

However, I digress. Back to the subject of "Tickle Down Economics"..which was, for all intents and purposes, conjured up and promoted to the 'inth' degree during the reign of "The Great Communicator"..who actually should have been dubbed "The Great Confuser."

It was never meant to be anything but a Conservative way of saying, "What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours as well, until we decide otherwise."

I'll admit the translation may not be exact, in its wording, but it really felt good to get it out of my system, so early in the day.

Later Francis, Woody

October 7, 2010 at 7:59 a.m.
EaTn said...

This post is both sad and funny. First, the lottery is basically a state tax on the desperate with a slim hope for improving their status, as compared to facing income taxes which the wealthier have snookered the middle class into thinking is bad. Second, the trickle-down Reaganomics was the beginning of the middle-class downfall and who unfortunately are still buying and voting the right-wing deceptions .

October 7, 2010 at 8:06 a.m.
frankfeeny said...

Q: "When was the last time a poor person gave anyone a job?"

A: Each and every day.

Well said, Doug. Lack of capital is not the cause of our economic mess - banks, corporations, and the super-rich are drowning in cash. Buying more T-bills won't create jobs.

October 7, 2010 at 8:32 a.m.
BobMKE said...

Socialism or Trickle Down Economics. The ONLY way a rich person (per Obama $250,000.00 plus) can hurt us is if he/she puts their money under their mattress.

I choose Trickle Down. Now I have joined Francis and Rolando. OK lefties let it rip.

October 7, 2010 at 8:41 a.m.
frankfeeny said...

From Warren Buffet: “There’s class warfare, all right. But it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.”

October 7, 2010 at 8:58 a.m.
mtngrl said...

Jobs are not created just because some company got a tax cut. Jobs are created because the current staff can not keep up with demand for the companies goods/services. If consumers are not buying the goods, there is no need to create new jobs regardless of what your tax rate is. If consumers are buying, workoad goes up and that increased income will be what provides the now needed jobs. Therefore if you increase consumer spending, you help create jobs - just like dougmusn stated.

All trickle down economics ever created was golden parachutes and outragously high CEO incomes. How many jobs could those CEOs have created with that money if they had the need? Trickle up economics creates the need.

October 7, 2010 at 9 a.m.
Clara said...

Huzzah for Trickle UP!

October 7, 2010 at 9:18 a.m.
OllieH said...

Trickle-up economics is a proven winner, Francis. Whether you and rolando chose to believe it, or not.

Jobs are not created simply because the bosses suddenly find themselves with more money. Jobs are created by increased consumer demand. How many jobs are created if American consumers have no money to spend on the goods and services that create those jobs?

No consumer spending- no expansion- no jobs. Or worse- layoffs.

If you give more money to the poor and middle class they tend to spend it. They put it right back into the economy. If you give more money to the privileged, they might spend some of it... maybe... unless they invest it overseas... or just sock it away in some stocks.

When are you folks going to figure it out- the stock market doesn't drive the economy, the economy drives the stock market. If you want to put our tax dollars in the hands of the people who REALLY invest in the economy of this country, and actually fuel job creation, give it to the folks who actually spend their money- those of us who work for a living.

October 7, 2010 at 9:36 a.m.
whoknows said...

Trickle-down economics is corporate welfare. Trickle-up economics is social welfare. Both are a form of socialism I would rather not see. Get rid of the tax code. Switch to fairtax, so everyone is taxed on what they spend, not what they make. That way, everyone has more to spend their money on. The more you spend, the more money the government makes. In addition, if you want to run a business, you have to pay "taxes" in the form of business licenses depending on where you sale. Stop government over-spending.
Everyone is happy.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer

October 7, 2010 at 9:50 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Trickle up Poverty is what we've gotten over the past 4 years. Now, who's been in control of Congress during that time?


mtngrl,

I'd guess that you do not run your own business. I say this because if you did you'd understand that when a business owner considers whether to expand his/her workforce the calculation involves much more than a perceived greater demand for the goods or services being sold. Depending upon the size of the business, a few percentage points of costs here and there will considerably change the equation. I'm not going to hire anyone unless I'm quite confident that I can not only cover the training, wage and payroll tax matching costs of the new employee, but that I can receive an adequate return on that investment. I'm not in business to provide jobs. Any jobs that I create are a byproduct of my self interest in providing for myself and my family. If there's no money in it, I won't be creating any jobs. The more the government takes in the form of taxes, the less I have to spend on expanding the business.

If those checks that I write to the Treasury on a quarterly basis get larger, the equation moves in the direction of hunkering down and squeezing more productivity out of the current staff. If those checks get smaller, the equation moves in the direction of expanding operations by buying more equipment and hiring more workers to man that equipment.

This is Business 101.

Maybe business and economics classes should be required at the high school level. There wouldn't be so many misconceptions about how it all works if they were. Most college graduates don't even get it.

October 7, 2010 at 9:58 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

Citizens for Tax Justice has calculated that "the major tax cuts enacted in the 2009 economic stimulus bill actually reduced federal income taxes for tax year 2009 for 98 percent of all working families and individuals. "

Now Obama wants to again cut taxes on everyone making UP TO $250,000. Those who make more will see their tax rate revert to what it was in the 1990s.

If a 3% tax increase on everything you make over a quarter of a million will sink your business you should board up your windows immediately.

I ran two successful businesses and I it's better to have more consumers with more money to spend. More money in their pockets meant more money in mine.

As George Santayana once said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

So go ahead. Vote for trickle down and put the final nail in America's coffin.

October 7, 2010 at 10:50 a.m.
hambone said...

SCOTTYM, "but I can recieve an adequate return on that investment"

Without demand of some kind there's no "adequate return" A businessman can't hire customers and make a living!

Does anyone here know if anyone has crunched the numbers and come up with a projection of how the economy would be today had we not had the "Bush tax cuts"? What would be the national debt? Would there be a budget deficit?

October 7, 2010 at 10:54 a.m.
hambone said...

Maybe at times I look at things too simple. what I would like to see is to remove the fear elected officials have of touching the "Third Rail"

Reverse the SCOTUS ruling on cooperate campaign donations.

Make it illegal for any campaign donations and lobbying.

Public financing of all federal elections with a set amount per office.

Limit campaign seasons to a few weeks.

It's just a dream I have. I know it will never happen, but wouldn't it be nice. Please don't jump on me for dreaming, I'm at the age where i may not remember I had this dream, soon.

October 7, 2010 at 11:24 a.m.
blackwater48 said...

I have a dream, too, hambone. I dream of a day when political advertising on television is illegal.

You shouldn't run for office the way you sell breakfast cereal. 30-second TV spots have nothing to do with how well qualified a candidate may be.

Provide candidates with free air time on public radio and TV to debate each or just give speeches. More debates would be better if you leave a moderator out of it. Let candidates question each other and explain their own positions on issues.

The biggest campaign expenditure is television. Take the money out of it. I know this flies in the face of free speech, but that's my dream of a more perfect election.

October 7, 2010 at 11:38 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

Why did bobMKE's last post get taken down? I was going to look at the site he linked, but now it's gone. :( Boo censorship. Did it get deleted because someone at TFP doesn't want us to move away from the koolaid trough? I'm confused.

October 7, 2010 at 11:47 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

hb,

"Without demand of some kind there's no "adequate return" A businessman can't hire customers and make a living!"

Yes, I agree. The point I was making is that there is more to the equation than simply a raw demand. Customers can covet all the goods/services they like, but if those things can not be profitably produced/rendered, the demand will not be fulfilled.

This is why places like Venezuela, the USSR, and Cuba have/had shortages of basic necessities. Why would anyone work to produce anything if the payback is non-existent? (Besides having a whip at their back)

"Does anyone here know if anyone has crunched the numbers and come up with a projection of how the economy would be today had we not had the "Bush tax cuts"? What would be the national debt? Would there be a budget deficit?"

The economy is way to complex to model absolutes based on hypothetical what-ifs.

That said, federal revenues have always grown when tax rates are reduced due to an expansion of the economy. The government takes a slightly smaller percentage of a larger pie. It happened after the Kennedy tax cuts in the '60s, the Reagan tax cuts in the '80s, and the Bush tax cuts of the '00s.

This obviously doesn't work in extreme cases such as cutting everyone's taxes to zero, but, historically, tax cuts lead to a lager GDP and therefore greater federal revenues.

The budget deficits and the national debt are due to spending more than the total revenue. It's pretty clear that if the spending had been the same, but the total revenue was lower due to a lack of tax cuts, both the deficits and the total debt would be larger.

It's not unusual to hear the idea that the "Bush Tax Cuts", increased the deficits and the total debt, however those who make this claim predicate it upon the idea that without the tax cuts the economy would have expanded at the same rate and therefore the federal government would have posted higher revenues. History shows this to be nonsense. Without the cuts, it is most likely, as we know from previous experience, that the economy would not have grown as robustly, and as a consequence, the revenues would not have been higher. They most likely would have been lower, and given the same outrageous spending levels the deficits and the total debt would be even higher.

Con't below

October 7, 2010 at 12:03 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

It is a fact that GWB walked into a recession at the beginning of his first term and he and the Republican lead congress cut taxes and got out of the way, and the economy righted itself. The economy continued to expand until the last two years of his second term when he started signing things coming out of the Dem lead Congress that should have been vetoed.

The recession that Reagan walked into at the beginning of his first term was much worse for the average person than the one we most recently experienced. Tax cuts and getting .gov out of the way worked then, too.

I honestly can not figure out if the current leaders in D.C. are actually very smart and are trying to crash the whole works, or if they really trying to fix things and are just ignorant and incompetent.

Raising anyone's taxes, no matter their income level, when the economy is limping along is dumbest thing anyone could possibly do.

October 7, 2010 at 12:03 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Mm, It seems that posts have been disappearing more frequently than usual lately.

Perhaps there has been a change in policy that no one bothered to inform us about.

October 7, 2010 at 12:07 p.m.
alprova said...

BobMKE wrote: "Socialism or Trickle Down Economics. The ONLY way a rich person (per Obama $250,000.00 plus) can hurt us is if he/she puts their money under their mattress. I choose Trickle Down."


And what do you call someone who lives in this country, who moves all of their business off-shore, and who places all of their assets in off-shore accounts?

It's no different than putting their cash under a mattress, and the IRS is going after them by and large, and it's long past time that they did.


"Now I have joined Francis and Rolando. OK lefties let it rip."


Well, you know what they say...

Misery loves company.

October 7, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.
mmlj said...

Scotty,

Thanks for an educated and reasoned argument. In turn, I would expect a very low batting average in your "comment useful" category, and a line-by-line refutation of every reasonable point you made by people who apparently have more than 25 hours in their days.

This reader appreciates your contributions.

October 7, 2010 at 12:24 p.m.
whoknows said...

hambone and blackwater: I don't think I agree with either of you very much, but cheers to your last posts. WAY too much is spent on campaigning and advertising, and lobbying contributes way too much to the corruption of politics. I would support your dreams.

October 7, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
memphisexile said...

Scotty, you are forgetting that to pay for these tax cuts Mr. Reagan had to borrow a ton of money that resulted in a huge deficit. Bush I did not fix anything, that is why he lost to Clinton. Bush II gives a tax cut when we need to fund 2 wars. So now, again, we have a huge deficit. Ironically, Obama is getting hammered over the deficit and spending for medical care reform by the same people who want to keep the tax cut that is partially responsible for the huge deficit.

Trickle down does't work. It didn't work in the 80's and ultimately cost Bush I his presidency when the deficit got too big and we got into a recession. It didn't work in the 00's because, again, eventually the bill catches up to you when you borrow but don't cut spending. No one is going to cut spending on the 3 big culprits that cost us money, SS, medicare and defense because it is political suicide.

Trickle down economics have never solved anything. It's an excuse to give tax breaks to rich guys that both times has ended in a recession.

October 7, 2010 at 12:37 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

At the risk of confusing you tea baggers with facts, here's part of an article from the Lexington Herald-Leader April 16, 2010:

"Most Americans don't know they got a tax cut last year, according to a New York Times/CBS News poll.

Seventy-nine percent said the Obama administration had raised taxes or kept them the same.

Only 12 percent knew that most Americans are paying less in federal income taxes.

The tax cuts are a result of the stimulus package enacted early last year to pump more cash into the economy.

Ninety-eight percent of working families and individuals got a tax cut, saving them an average $1,158 on the tax returns that were due this week, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a research group that advocates for fair taxes for middle- and low-income families and for reducing the federal debt."

So my question to the Baggers is this: Why the outrage?

You should all be on the Obama bandwagon for more tax cuts!

Oh wait. That's not what you're angry about.

October 7, 2010 at 12:41 p.m.
ordinaryguy said...

Since when was it a crime to be wealthy? Most of the loons posting here have bought into the class warfare that Barack Hussien Obama mmmmm mmmmm mmmmm has started.

Let you liberal nut jobs remember one thing: John F. Kennedy lowered the higest tax brackets from 70% to around 30%. He knew that those with the money actually provide the real jobs.

Those tax cuts of Obama really did not mean much realizing that over half of those affected do not pay income tax to begin with. All they get is a refund, and even worse more money from EITC that they never earned to start with.

Kennedy and Reagan on the same page. Interesting isn't it. Folks JFK was not the raving loon his brothers were.

October 7, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Scotty, you are forgetting that to pay for these tax cuts Mr. Reagan had to borrow a ton of money that resulted in a huge deficit."

This is a fallacy. A popular one, but a fallacy no less.

No one PAYS for reduced taxes. It is money that is NOT taken from citizens, which they then use to invest and expand the economy resulting in larger revenues for the goevernment. Calling tax cuts an expense is the equivalent of calling a reduction in fuel prices an expense.

"Bush I did not fix anything, that is why he lost to Clinton."

GHWB raised tax rates, and Perot split the conservative vote. That is why GHWB lost to Clinton.

"Ironically, Obama is getting hammered over the deficit and spending for medical care reform by the same people who want to keep the tax cut that is partially responsible for the huge deficit."

Obama tripled+ GWBs deficit. That's why he is, deservedly, getting hammered. As for the rest, go back to my earlier post, r.e. tax cuts and deficits and try to comprehend the logic.

"No one is going to cut spending on the 3 big culprits that cost us money, SS, medicare and defense because it is political suicide."

They will eventually, sooner rather than later as the current trajectory is not sustainable.

October 7, 2010 at 1:04 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

It's not a crime to be wealthy. No one has suggested otherwise.

I think it's a crime to give tax cuts to the wealthiest 2% when doing so only worsens the budget deficit and weakens the economy.

Slogans and theories are wonderful.

Since 1945, however, here's a breakdown of the U.S. Budget deficit as Percent of GDP.

Truman - Down Eisenhower - Down Kennedy - Down Johnson - Down Nixon - Down Ford - Up slightly Carter - Down slightly Reagan - Way up Bush I - Still rising Clinton - Down Bush II - Up

You guys keep making arguments without foundation. When somebody points out how trickle down economics haven't worked you respond with opinion and platitudes.

Please present data suggesting that trickle down economics has benefitted anyone but a millionaire or billionaire.

October 7, 2010 at 1:11 p.m.
woody said...

Francis..Francis..Francis. I gave you a 'pass' a while back, thinking you might have just had a bad day yesterday...silly me..I have to keep reminding myself, you have a bad day everyday.

The only point you got right in your last 'post' were the unemployment numbers you attributed to "Gallup", but you couldn't even do that without an uncalled for remark. And then you wanted to blame the whole situation on the president and anyone who voted for him.

Well, in case you haven't already heard, there are those of us who didn't vote for him, who are still hoping for the best. You know hope don't you?? Or are you someone who has no hope, wants no hope, and only sees the "dark cloud" but never "the silver lining?"

I'd pray for you Francis, but I'm not sure you would even appreciate it or try to get any better because of it. I know this hasn't a thing to do with today's topic but then your previous posts had little to do with it either.

Francis, it's been said, "...you can either be a part of the solution or a part of the problem...." Let me be clear, in order to be "part of the solution" you have to have a positive attitude..something you have yet to display in this venue.

TTFN, Woody

October 7, 2010 at 1:15 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "I'd guess that you do not run your own business. I say this because if you did you'd understand that when a business owner considers whether to expand his/her workforce the calculation involves much more than a perceived greater demand for the goods or services being sold."


Hogwash. Demand for your services or product is the bottom line factor in determining whether you hire or not. Meeting those demands is the only way to grow a business, even if you lose some profit along the way.

The goal should be always on meeting the demands of your customers, be they present, past, or future. Fail to do that, and you are out of business.


"I'm not going to hire anyone unless I'm quite confident that I can not only cover the training, wage and payroll tax matching costs of the new employee, but that I can receive an adequate return on that investment."


And using that strategy will never allow you to grow a business. In fact, you will kill it.

That's the strategy of a grocery store about to go bankrupt. When people fill a grocery cart, and find that there is only one register open, with ten people in line waiting to pay for their goods, the next time they want groceries, they will go elsewhere.


"I'm not in business to provide jobs. Any jobs that I create are a byproduct of my self interest in providing for myself and my family. If there's no money in it, I won't be creating any jobs. The more the government takes in the form of taxes, the less I have to spend on expanding the business."


And how do lost sales factor into your theory? If you make your decisions to expand a business based on any tax implications, then you are taking your eye off the ball.

That is no different than someone who works for an employer, refusing overtime hours because they will have more payroll taxes taken out of their check.


"If those checks that I write to the Treasury on a quarterly basis get larger, the equation moves in the direction of hunkering down and squeezing more productivity out of the current staff. If those checks get smaller, the equation moves in the direction of expanding operations by buying more equipment and hiring more workers to man that equipment. This is Business 101."


No, that's bankrupt business 101.

If you have not figured out how to fold in all of your costs and tax implications into the cost of your services or goods, and if those taxes are in any manner preventing you from expanding your business, then you don't have any business to expand.

If people waited until they could afford a child, no children would ever be born.

If businessmen made decisions whether to hire, as you have outlined, Microsoft would still be a business operated in the garage of Bill Gate's parent's home.

Do you think for one second that he ever made a decision to hire people based on tax checks, or could it be that his mind was always on seeking sales and meeting demand?

October 7, 2010 at 1:17 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

I have to say that Scotty makes a lot of sense. I am not very intelligent when it comes to economic stuff but I know that Scotty makes the most sense on this forum so far.

I appreciate the education Scott.

October 7, 2010 at 1:19 p.m.
BobMKE said...

I didn't know that the site I posted was taken down. Plan "B". Google; The Laffer Curve(Arthur Laffer) Thomas Sowell Jude Wanniski

JFK stated, "A rising tide lifts all boats."

October 7, 2010 at 1:53 p.m.
ordinaryguy said...

And just what did JFK do? CUT TAXES on the upper incomes! Careful BobMKE or folks will realize if JFK were alive today he would be in the GOP

October 7, 2010 at 1:58 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

You'd argue if I said the ocean is mostly water.

"Hogwash."

You'll kindly note that I wrote, the "calculation involves much more than a perceived greater demand" as in "there are other factor involved".

"And using that strategy will never allow you to grow a business. In fact, you will kill it."

Oh, I see, so increasing costs by 20%, to reap a 10% increase in sales is a good idea in your world. Wow, you're a really bright guy. Remind me never to leave you in charge of my business.

"If you make your decisions to expand a business based on any tax implications, then you are taking your eye off the ball."

My eye is on the bottom line, not on some silly ball being pointed at by economically illiterate leftists. There are a few lines (in red, surrounded by brakets) on the P&L that read "taxes" of one type or another a few lines up from the bottom. They do have an effect on the bottom line, they make the number down there smaller. It is pure ignorance to claim otherwise.(Understandable, as you are also a believer that there can be a surplus even if the government spends more than it brings in revenue.)

"If you have not figured out how to fold in all of your costs and tax implications into the cost of your services or goods,"

Yeah, that what I was referring to when I was writing about the calculation being more complex than just raw demand. Maybe you should actually read what I write instead of just flailing away at the keyboard.

All business owners are risk-takers to a greater or lesser extent. When I make a decision which will affect myself, my current employees and my business allies, I do not do so lightly. Endangering my investment, my job, my employees' jobs, to chase a few more dollars is something I approach from a very calculating direction. And, as we've discussed before, it can be a game of only a few percentage points. Every penny counts. I understand from your prior posts on the subject that your business is a bit more of a cash cow, mine isn't. Small tax increases come directly out of my pocket. Large ones will cost jobs.

It's simple 2nd grade mathematics, but again, I understand that you can't grasp it.

October 7, 2010 at 2:13 p.m.
mmlj said...

Alprova, thanks for fulfilling my prophecy of a line-by-line analysis of Scotty. I was counting on you. Can I have the length of days that you have?

October 7, 2010 at 2:24 p.m.
hambone said...

In my previous post I also meant to add term Limits for federal office too.

Some on here complain about passing a huge debt on to our grandchildren. Isn't that what we do by not paying our own way. What I'm saying is we have to reach a balance between raising taxes and cutting spending. Because of the "Third Rail Syndrone" politicans have no incentive to do what is right for America, as long as they can borrow from China.

October 7, 2010 at 2:25 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

@nurse - you should transfer to alprova U., cuz Scotty just got schooled.

Wawatoosa | On: October 7, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. Did you find this comment ignorant? Yes/No 1 of 1 people found this comment ignorant.

October 7, 2010 at 2:36 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

I found that comment IGNORANT.... i just could not click YES =)

so make it 2.

October 7, 2010 at 2:41 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

SCOTTYM wrote:

"@nurse - you should transfer to alprova U., cuz Scotty just got schooled.

Wawatoosa | On: October 7, 2010 at 2:27 p.m. Did you find this comment ignorant? Yes/No 1 of 1 people found this comment ignorant."

Sounds about right.

October 7, 2010 at 2:45 p.m.
whoknows said...

Hambone: "Some on here complain about passing a huge debt on to our grandchildren. Isn't that what we do by not paying our own way."

People not wanting to pay their own is the reason we have so many "social welfare" programs that cause higher national debt/taxes.
I know what point you were trying to make, but I am making the point that because so many don't want to pay their own way, they are passing it on to us, the tax payers to pay theirs for them. And causing our grandchildren to come into this world already in debt...

October 7, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "Oh, I see, so increasing costs by 20%, to reap a 10% increase in sales is a good idea in your world. Wow, you're a really bright guy. Remind me never to leave you in charge of my business."


Let's be clear what we're discussing here. The proposal is to raise taxes by 3% on the TAXABLE income of those who make at or above $250,000 in TAXABLE income per year.

Your proposal of a "increasing costs by 20%" is a fallacy you are attempting to infuse in this debate for the purpose of obfuscating the subject at hand. But, I'll roll with it, as silly as you are to offer it.

A 10% increase in your sales, unless you are selling bubble gum for a living, could be quite rewarding and could more than justify hiring some help.


My eye is on the bottom line, not on some silly ball being pointed at by economically illiterate leftists. There are a few lines (in red, surrounded by brakets) on the P&L that read "taxes" of one type or another a few lines up from the bottom."


Your net profit, as a sole proprietor, if it places you into the fortunate position of making a quarter million dollars in taxable income, will be hit with 3% in additional taxes. If you're sitting right on that line, you're looking at an increase of $7,500 per year.

That's about half the cost of a minimum wage employee.


"They do have an effect on the bottom line, they make the number down there smaller. It is pure ignorance to claim otherwise."


If your bottom line is smaller, it can only be due to the fact that you are selling less.


"All business owners are risk-takers to a greater or lesser extent. When I make a decision which will affect myself, my current employees and my business allies, I do not do so lightly. Endangering my investment, my job, my employees' jobs, to chase a few more dollars is something I approach from a very calculating direction. And, as we've discussed before, it can be a game of only a few percentage points. Every penny counts. I understand from your prior posts on the subject that your business is a bit more of a cash cow, mine isn't. Small tax increases come directly out of my pocket. Large ones will cost jobs."


If that's the case, then it sounds to me that you are not among the group that will be affected if those tax cuts are not extended to those above that quarter million mark.


"It's simple 2nd grade mathematics, but again, I understand that you can't grasp it."


As a matter of fact, I can grasp mathematics that would make your head spin, but you don't offer any figures to grasp. You speak in generalities, with no details whatsoever, and you inject semantical percentages, in some attempt to make points that are not even part of the equation.

You trip over dollars to pick up dimes.

October 7, 2010 at 3:16 p.m.

"Paying for tax cuts"

Some of you folks could really gain from an elementary economics class. Alprova, I recommend you sit the front, quietly.

October 7, 2010 at 3:40 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

No one here today is talking about any specific tax rate changes, only about generalities. Now I see why you've gotten all fired up, you perceived that someone was attacking your favorite socialist.

"If your bottom line is smaller, it can only be due to the fact that you are selling less."

Or, costs(of whatever type) have increased. Math is funny that way. I know you understand this, it just doesn't jive with the intent to increase taxes on the most productive class for punitive reasons, which is the only reason for doing so in a fragile economy. There is no economic theory which supports raising taxes when the economy is doing poorly. One could argue that raising taxes in small increments during economic expansion is a good idea to help pay down the debt, and I'd likely agree. But, doing it now is just stupid, and serves no purpose other than to prolong the poor economy to justify more government expansion.

I do not engage in hyperbole to any greater extent than you do.

October 7, 2010 at 3:43 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Wawa, I would not make fun of others when you can't even get Scotty's name right... I was just fooling around about clicking on the yes. I would like to tell you what to do with it but since I am a Christian, I will refrain.

Have a wonderful day everyone. It is time to go home.

October 7, 2010 at 3:43 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Slogans and platitudes.

Generalities and opinions.

Insults and ignorance.

I repeat:

"Please present data suggesting that trickle down economics has benefitted anyone but a millionaire or billionaire."

October 7, 2010 at 3:51 p.m.
junepop55 said...

Hey - I posted the hard data that blackwater48 requested and my post disappeared!

October 7, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

In my book SCOTTYM gets the award for useful contribution on this topic.

Blackwater. All you have do to is compare North Korea to South Korea, or East Germany to West Germany (before the curtain fell), or the former Soviet Union to the United States...

Then you get a firm grip on the consequences of, "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". Which is another way to say trickle up.

How obvious does it have to be?

October 7, 2010 at 5:01 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms"

"From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Department, individual and corporate income tax receipts were up 40 percent in the three years following the Bush tax cuts."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/3/bush-tax-cuts-boosted-federal-revenue/

"Income mobility of individuals was considerable in the U.S. economy during the 1996 through 2005 period with roughly half of taxpayers who began in the bottom quintile moving up to a higher income group within 10 years.

About 55 percent of taxpayers moved to a different income quintile within 10 years.

Among those with the very highest incomes in 1996--the top 1/100 of one percent--only 25 percent remained in the group in 2005. Moreover, the median real income of these taxpayers declined over the study period.

The degree of mobility among income groups is unchanged from the prior decade (1987 through 1996).

Economic growth resulted in rising incomes for most taxpayers over the study period:

Median real incomes of all taxpayers increased by 24 percent after adjusting for inflation;

Real incomes of two-thirds of all taxpayers increased over this period; and

Median incomes of those initially in the lower income groups increased more than the median incomes of those initially in the high income groups.

http://www.treas.gov/offices/tax-policy/library/incomemobilitystudy03-08revise.pdf


October 7, 2010 at 5:11 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Please present data suggesting that trickle down economics has benefitted anyone but a millionaire or billionaire.

October 7, 2010 at 5:14 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

bw48,

Click that treasury link right above your last post. You keep asking the same question, but are ignoring the answer.

October 7, 2010 at 5:57 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Sorry, Scotty. I posted before I saw your last submission.

Here's what I see when I look out over the economic landscape:

83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.

24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year. Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.

In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.

As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets. The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth. Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.

The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago. More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.

For the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.

Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.

Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.

The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

October 7, 2010 at 5:58 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty - I clicked on your link to the Treasury Department but I became mired in mission statements and press releases.

Where did you find your info? I checked out "economy" and "tax policy" but I didn't find anything helpful.

October 7, 2010 at 6:23 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

SCOTTYM,

You make some good points, but overall I don't think you're exactly winning this argument. On a point by point basis alprova has out-reasoned you, even when you may be correct. The more you argue, the worse supply side economics looks.

If you own a business it must be small, because you don't really seem to understand how decisions are made at major corporations. A small businessman is concerned with personal profits and family first and uses this as a guage of whether it's appropriate to expand.

Much larger forces are at work in major corporations and big money. Perceived demand drives these industries. Companies are willing to take huge losses in profits and they can frequently afford to do this if they think the market will support them. None of my colleagues in Fortune 500 companies make decisions the way you describe.

Supply side economics, or trickle down, makes a lot of sense in theory. There is also some evidence to support that it works. You correctly argue that there were forces at work that made recovery difficult and may have limited the positive effects of supply side economics.

Getting back to the basics, in states which have the most ecnomic freedomes (more like supply side economics) per capita income grows faster and more jobs are created.

A good example of this can be found at:

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2006/12/trivia_tidbit_o_392.html

October 7, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

continued....

The main argument against my point is that the most-economically free states are also the ones that are less crowded per square mile. Many of these states had farm lands which allowed industry to come in. In these areas, a lot of farm labor was replaced by high density employers such as distribution centers and other high density industries.

Truth is, I think there is a time for supply side economics and a time for restricting economic freedoms, sort of like raising and lowering interest rates, but I can't prove that.

Putting more money in the hands of the wealthy, in the hands of the banks, which supply side economics tries to do, does give the opportunity to go out and create new business. The problem is that with more money, many individuals don't create more business. Individuals frequently retire early.

Give businesses more money, and you can't always predict what they will do. alprova looks at the ones who don't reinvest, while you look at the ones who do. Sometimes you're right. Sometimes he's right.

TARP, in some ways was similar to supply-side economics. We supported the banks and they still don't loan despite some of them having tremendous profits over the past year.

All that being said, I think Reagan was right to try it. I think there is evidence from the study above to suggest it might actually work, but I will freely admit there are possible factors that contributed to economic growth in those states other than economic freedom.

In my opinion, I don't know if either side can truly lay claim to knowing what the truth is.

In the end, the truth can only be known if markets and motivations are transparent. Right now, so much of our economic and political propaganda on both sides are being driven by unidentified powers. I don't trust anyone who claims to know the absolute truth.

October 7, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

bw48,

The link I posted connects directly to a Treasury study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005" which addresses many of the concerns you've posted in the 5:58 post.

While I do agree that the "rich" have gotten richer, the "poor" have gotten richer as well. The standard of life enjoyed by all save the lowest 1oth of a percent of the people in the U.S., would amaze even the most wealthy of folks from 200 years ago.

The jist of the the linked document is that mobility between economic levels is very fluid. Quite a few of the "rich", end up not so rich, and quite a few of the "poor" claw their way into higher strata.

There is no barrier to movement up and down the economic ladder. With a goodly bit of hard work, education and a bit of luck in most cases, nearly anyone can make their way up that ladder.

Economics is not a zero sum game. There is not a finite amount of wealth. The accumulation of wealth by some does not inhibit it's acquisition by others.

I've been on the lowest end myself. I've gone hungry because I could not afford to buy food. I've couch-surfed because I could not afford housing. In both cases decisions that I made that put me in those places, not because others have more than they need (by the definition of others).

October 7, 2010 at 7:16 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty-

Yeah, I goofed. Got it. But it's 1996 to 2005.

My wife just got home, but later I'll research the data from 2000 to 2006 or 7.

Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong!

October 7, 2010 at 7:35 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

rwr,

I do agree that many very large corporations view the P&L sheet a little differently than I do. Most of that difference, I believe, lies with the fact that they can sustain multi-million dollar losses this year, and make it up next year. Small businesses can not do this. Those corporations can lay off a few thousand folks to make up for small fluctuations in the market, I am not so insulated from the trenches.

There is at least one Mega-Corp that looks at expenses the same way I do, Walmart. Every freaking penny, man. That is the reason they dominate their market.

As for the rest, you've made some good points.

I do take exception to equating TARP with supply-side economics. This is a blatant example of the very thing so many on the left decry as wealth transfer from the middle class to the wealthy. In that particular case, they are right. I do not believe that Commercial entities who overextend themselves should ever be bailed out at the expense of the taxpayer. The consequences for faulty business decisions should be borne by those who made those decisions. Thus my very careful calculations.

October 7, 2010 at 7:36 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm right. Maybe we're both wrong!"

That, I'll agree with.

October 7, 2010 at 7:37 p.m.
reaganwasright said...

SCOTTYM, just so you know, I'm hardest on the people who are on my side. It's a way of challenging myself, too.

I'll admit TARP was a stretch.

October 7, 2010 at 7:45 p.m.
Clara said...

Sorry! I'm probably off topic again.

I received another expensive blurb in the mail from the 60 plus association, and this time they included a Web site address.

I can't make any sense of their figures.

Perhaps you can.

http://www.spendingrevolt.com/events/

They seem to be operating under different names, but all the same stuff.

October 7, 2010 at 8:21 p.m.
jpo3136 said...

Trickle down economics works with blitzkrieg efficiency when it comes to passing the costs and liabilities down to consumers.

October 7, 2010 at 8:54 p.m.
moonpie said...

These are organizations and sites for monied interests. Who oppose health care reform.

This is propaganda. (I say this knowing not all propaganda is bad.)

60 plus is a non-profit which operates to promote the interest of major pharmaceutical companies. They are basically against anything like national health care, or anything else that is perceived by them as not in the best interest of major phmaraceutical corporations. As a non-profit, they can disguise their funding sources.

spendingrevolt was created in May of this year. It's associated with the Americans for Prosperity, the industrialist Koch brother's organization which has generated Tea Party Talking points and funded aspects of the movement.

If you don't understand their figures, perhaps they don't want you to.

I would agree with some of their points, but not all the ways to get there.

October 7, 2010 at 9:05 p.m.
rolando said...

lkeith --

A bit late on this reply but I actually scanned and read most of the posts...except for al's and usually nucanuck's.

Neither really posts much of value and that that is is cloaked in multiple paragraphs of fluff and g0bbledeg00k. [The censor refused to accept that word properly spelled with ohs instead of zeros. Machines gone wild.]

I do relatively [that word again] few complete responses on a point-by-point basis [unless I want to annoy some pompous, asinine windbag.] They answer nothing, really...they just turn the point of the blade to a new, unrelated, subject-changing target.

October 7, 2010 at 10:13 p.m.
ITguy said...

The trickle down is going to Mexico. Targeted tax cuts can stimulate the economy, but not all tax cuts have that effect. We have NEVER had tax cuts with offsetting cuts in spending. It is the Federal government pumping money into the economy that creates the stimulus. If we are going to use tax policy to try to create jobs, we need to be sure that the jobs are created in America.

October 7, 2010 at 10:18 p.m.
blackwater48 said...

Scotty - and anyone else missing Bushonomics, here's an article from the Economic Policy Institute from 2008 breaking down income levels 2000 - 2007.

http://www.epi.org/publications/entry/webfeatures_econindicators_income_20080826/

October 7, 2010 at 10:37 p.m.
alprova said...

Scotty wrote: "No one here today is talking about any specific tax rate changes, only about generalities. Now I see why you've gotten all fired up, you perceived that someone was attacking your favorite socialist."


I so love the way you dance around the issues whenever you are challenged. What other tax increases are even on the table? None. The ONLY tax increases on the table is whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts for top earners.

In fact, the President just signed the legislation to CUT taxes for small businesses that hire employees.


I wrote: "If your bottom line is smaller, it can only be due to the fact that you are selling less."

Your response: "Or, costs(of whatever type) have increased. Math is funny that way."


I guess you don't know how to raise your prices to compensate for increased production costs. Apparently you don't know how to factor in any added or increase in taxes either.


"I know you understand this, it just doesn't jive with the intent to increase taxes on the most productive class for punitive reasons, which is the only reason for doing so in a fragile economy. There is no economic theory which supports raising taxes when the economy is doing poorly."


Now either you're going to stick to how taxes affect a small business, or you're going to argue how they affect individuals who earn income above a quarter million dollars.

I hate to point out the obvious, but an individual who earns a quarter million dollars or more is not experiencing a "fragile economic situation," unless he or she is in hock up to their eyeballs in debt, requiring them to spend every dime they make to pay their bills, and if that's the case, they have their priorities all screwed up.

Where do you get off making the statement that someone who makes a quarter million is any "more productive" than someone who earns minimum wages for 40 hours of work per week?

That is the kind of pure arrogance that makes people despise the wealthy in this nation. Production, in my opinion, is not measured by what you earn or take off the top for yourself as someone in business.

I have always despised statements like that coming from people. Money never made a man better than their workers. But their workers have made many a man their money.


"One could argue that raising taxes in small increments during economic expansion is a good idea to help pay down the debt, and I'd likely agree. But, doing it now is just stupid, and serves no purpose other than to prolong the poor economy to justify more government expansion."


That would only be true if indeed any amount of personal income tax increases would cost people their jobs, and to date, there is not one shred of proof that this has EVER happened. It's nothing short of Republican rhetoric.


"I do not engage in hyperbole to any greater extent than you do."


Yep...you've proven that alright. 20% increase?

October 8, 2010 at 1:18 a.m.
alprova said...

Scotty quoted: ""The U.S. economy added 8 million new jobs from mid-2003 to early 2007, and the median household increased its wealth by $20,000 in real terms"

Scotty's source: Washington Post writer Ryan Dwyer


His claims are easily refuted by fact.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/01/09/bush-on-jobs-the-worst-track-record-on-record/

Note that Dwyer only refers to figures through EARLY 2007, when jobs started nosediving. Everyone remembers that.

Notice that he does not define whose median income rose by $20,000. It wasn't the AVERAGE American, that's for sure.

"Average incomes fell. Average taxpayer income was down $3,512, or 5.7 percent, in 2008 compared with 2000, President Bush's own benchmark year for his promises of prosperity through tax cuts."

Source:

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/2AB38DFC73DE7890852577AB006071ED?OpenDocument

October 8, 2010 at 1:59 a.m.
alprova said...

UNDISPUTED FACTS

The below facts come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States government.

LAST 75 YEARS - FROM 1933 THROUGH 2008 (AUGUST OF 2008)

12 Presidents - 6 Democrats (40 years) and 6 Republicans (35 years)

The 6 who produced the highest percentage of jobs were the 6 Democrats

The 6 who produced the lowest percentage of jobs were the 6 Republicans

The WORST Democratic Party president created a higher percentage of jobs than the BEST Republican Party President.

Jobs went up every time a Democrat was elected

Jobs went down every time a Republican was elected.

Average job creation percentages were:

3.23% job increase by Democratic Party Presidents.

1.23% job increase by Republican Party Presidents.

Democratic Presidents averaged, over past 75 years, more than DOUBLING Republican Presidents in job creation percentage.

THE WORST PRESIDENTS OVER THE LAST 75 YEARS - PERCENTAGE BASIS

Dead last: George W. Bush: 0.5% (thru August of 2008 - does NOT include the September collapse, a loss of 159,000 jobs)

Next to last: George H.W. Bush: 0.6 %

LAST 60 YEARS - 1948 THROUGH 2008 (AUGUST OF 2008)

188,000 - average jobs created per month by Democratic Presidents.

89,000 - average jobs created per month by Republican Presidents.

COMPARING BILL CLINTON TO GEORGE BUSH SR. AND GEORGE BUSH JR.

Bill Clinton (8 years) 2.4% increase 237,000 monthly average (4 times as many jobs as either Bush)

George Bush Sr.(4 years) 0.6 % increase 54,000 monthly average

George Bush Jr.(7 and ½ years) 0.5 %increase 54,000 monthly average

October 8, 2010 at 2:10 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Geez,

"What other tax increases are even on the table?"

Didn't I point out earlier that I am /we were discussing generalities and NOT specifics.

"The ONLY tax increases on the table is whether or not to extend the Bush tax cuts for top earners."

Yes, as I said, for no other purpose than punishment for those people, as raising taxes for anyone in a weak economy has no other value.

"I guess you don't know how to raise your prices to compensate for increased production costs. Apparently you don't know how to factor in any added or increase in taxes either."

I guess you've never competed in a crowded market where very small(% wise) increases in price to the client spells the difference between profit and NO_SALE.

Again, you're saying exactly what I said r.e. taxes are in the calculation and affect the bottom line.

"Now either you're going to stick to how taxes affect a small business, or you're going to argue how they affect individuals who earn income above a quarter million dollars."

Or you're going to chase you're tail around saying exactly the same thing, two different ways. Often the "individuals who earn income above a quarter million dollars." and the "small business" are the same thing.

"I hate to point out the obvious, but an individual who earns a quarter million dollars or more is not experiencing a "fragile economic situation," unless he or she is in hock up to their eyeballs in debt, requiring them to spend every dime they make to pay their bills, and if that's the case, they have their priorities all screwed up."

Do you mean the person (business) who jumps on a perceived demand for goods/services by getting in over their head borrowing money to expand production, damned be the consequences? Didn't we go through this already? Some of us see those "fragile economic situation"s (where ever that came from) a little more clearly than others.

"Where do you get off making the statement that someone who makes a quarter million is any "more productive" than someone who earns minimum wages for 40 hours of work per week?"

Where do you get off making the statement that someone who organizes and supervises a team of professionals to design/build a 4 lane highway across a large river is equally as productive as the person who cooks the french fries at Krystals?

October 8, 2010 at 2:39 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Production, in my opinion, is not measured by what you earn or take off the top for yourself as someone in business"

I agree. I think it should be measured by what you add to society/civilization.

Sorry, but the high school dropout cooking fries at the local fast food place is not adding the same amount of value to society as the ex-Navy guy who manages the night shift at the local nuclear power-plant.

I have never written nor implied that "the more money you make, the greater your value to society".

I think that he opposite is true. The greater your value to society, the more money you(should)make. Maybe I'm weird for thinking this.

"That would only be true if indeed any amount of personal income tax increases would cost people their jobs, and to date, there is not one shred of proof that this has EVER happened."

Here's some anecdotal(not proof outside of this instance)evidence, I'm not hiring a soul until I feel confident that I will will collect more money, over an extended time period, by doing so.

"Yep...you've proven that alright."

As have you.

October 8, 2010 at 2:40 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "The link I posted connects directly to a Treasury study titled "Income Mobility in the U.S. from 1996 to 2005".

While I do agree that the "rich" have gotten richer, the "poor" have gotten richer as well."


Scott, why point to any evidence that ENDS in 2005. That is the year that the economy started falling apart, big time.

And try as you may, you cannot lay that on the backs of the Democrats. The Democrats were elected BECAUSE the economy went south. Those effects began in 2005, mainly because those time-bombed mortgages were allowed to be put up as investments, are STILL exploding to this very day.

And that snowball started it's downward roll when former Republicans, Senator Phil Gramm (R, Texas), Representative Jim Leach (R, Iowa), and Representative Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R, Virginia), introduced and co-sponsored the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act.

That piece of legislation, renamed the Financial Services Act, ultimately allowed the bundling of those mortgage backed securities to be placed up as investments, allowed insurance, banks, and investment houses to merge, which we know wreaked havoc with the stock markets....TWICE in our nation's history now.

The House passed the bill by a vote of 343-86 (Republicans 205–16; Democrats 138–69; Independent 0–1), two months after the Senate had already passed its version of the bill by a much-narrower 54–44 vote along basically-partisan lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).

This same scenario is EXACTLY what caused the stock market crash in 1929, the Great Depression, and it took ten years before the economy of this country revived.

On July 8, 1932, the Dow reached its lowest level of the 20th century and did not return to pre-1929 levels until November 1954.

Lest we NEVER forget who and what caused our economy to tank.

October 8, 2010 at 2:44 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

alprova | On: October 8, 2010 at 1:59 a.m.

So the numbers tanked when the Democrats assumed control of Congress? Surpise, surprise, surprise!

alprova | On: October 8, 2010 at 2:10 a.m

That's a lot of "facts". Wanna source it?

October 8, 2010 at 2:48 a.m.
alprova said...

Rolando wrote: "A bit late on this reply but I actually scanned and read most of the posts...except for al's and usually nucanuck's."


Oh my heart is broken. Rolando doesn't like reading my posts.


"Neither really posts much of value and that that is is cloaked in multiple paragraphs of fluff and g0bbledeg00k."


Don't get mad, but at least I can construct a paragraph and and it usually makes sense.

I fixed yours for you.


"I do relatively few complete responses on a point-by-point basis unless I want to annoy some pompous, asinine windbag. They answer nothing, really...they just turn the point of the blade to a new, unrelated, subject-changing target."


You do few relatively complete responses on a point-by-point basis because you can't back up what you write with facts, proof, or the truth.

I'm always prepared for a challenge. Always. It's not my fault that you aren't and never have been.

Why don't you try being a man? You're acting like a ten year old.

October 8, 2010 at 3:08 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

"Scott, why point to any evidence that ENDS in 2005. That is the year that the economy started falling apart, big time."

Really?

"And try as you may, you cannot lay that on the backs of the Democrats. The Democrats were elected BECAUSE the economy went south. Those effects began in 2005, mainly because those time-bombed mortgages were allowed to be put up as investments, are STILL exploding to this very day."

I think you've lost a few years somewhere. And, by the way, who insisted upon those timebombs?

"The Democrats were elected BECAUSE the economy went south."

In 2006 when they assumed power in the house and the senate the economy was rockin'.

The economy was not on a southern trajectory until the dems were in place.

I think you might need to sue your timepiece, as your timeline is screwed up.

October 8, 2010 at 3:13 a.m.
Clara said...

Moonpie,

I got the impression it was the AARP, but I didn't delve that deeply into the other links.

Thanks!

October 8, 2010 at 3:21 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Or you're going to chase you're tail around saying exactly the same thing, two different ways. Often the "individuals who earn income above a quarter million dollars." and the "small business" are the same thing."


So what? You should know as a businessman, that what you take off the top and call your income can be manipulated like play-dough.

And as I pointed out, the ONLY increase in taxation being proposed is on what you claim as profit or income. Surely you know what to do in order to avoid writing a bigger check to the government for income taxes. You reduce what you claim as personal income and invest that amount into your business. Problem solved.


"Do you mean the person (business) who jumps on a perceived demand for goods/services by getting in over their head borrowing money to expand production, damned be the consequences? Didn't we go through this already? Some of us see those "fragile economic situation"s (where ever that came from) a little more clearly than others."


I didn't say that in the course of THIS debate. I did in the past, for a whole different reason. We're going in circles Scott.

Borrowing or going full steam ahead without a clue as to what you need to do in order to grow would be fundamentally stupid. I think we agree on that. But if you're turning down business or are unable to make a sale because you don't have what someone wants, then there is a problem.


"Where do you get off making the statement that someone who organizes and supervises a team of professionals to design/build a 4 lane highway across a large river is equally as productive as the person who cooks the french fries at Krystals?


Well, I don't know, but if you happen to get hungry one day and you pop into a Krystal for a burger and fries, and were told that the fry cook had quit, so there were no fries, you might consider that to be counter-productive. I'd say that hiring a new employee would be quite evident, to avoid any more loss in sales. Wouldn't you?

Better yet, the next time you pop into a Krystal, go up to the counter and inform the person taking your order, in a loud and booming voice, that you are a more productive member of society than they are, because you pave four-lane roads over a bridge.

Then when you get your order, have a seat next to the window, smell that wonderful aroma of your freshly prepared food, open the top of your burger and see if you can identify the glob of spit among the other condiments on top of that all-beef patty.

October 8, 2010 at 4:33 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "I agree. I think it should be measured by what you add to society/civilization."


You were born naked and with nothing when you came to Earth. When you leave it, you will have not a thing more to take with you.

Will God care what you contributed to society or civilization, or how much money you made as a result of such contributions? Hhhmmmm.


"Sorry, but the high school dropout cooking fries at the local fast food place is not adding the same amount of value to society as the ex-Navy guy who manages the night shift at the local nuclear power-plant."


I think your value system is a bit warped myself, but you're free to believe what you want.

I consider myself to be better than no one. And no one is better than I.

During the last two years of high school, I worked in a service station as a mechanic. We had a regular customer who worked for GM in Atlanta. He drove a shiny new Cadillac.

One day he popped by to have the oil changed. We were discussing a labor strike that was going on at the time, involving a pay raise that the employees were trying to force out of management.

I asked him why he was not happy with the $15.00 plus an hour he was making. I mentioned that it was almost triple what I was making per hour. I will never forget his response.

"Well, you don't have the standard of living that I do."

I politely flipped the handle to lower his car to the ground, backed it out of the bay, and told him to go get his oil changed somewhere else and to never come back.

My boss, who was totally in awe as to what I had just done, asked me why I made him leave. I related the conversation to him, and added, "And if you want to fire me right now, that will be fine with me, because I'd do it again."

He stood there for a minute, giving me weird smile, and then finally said, "I believe you would, so the way I see it, there's no need for him to come back."

I worked for the man for another two years, until he died of a massive heart attack in the garage, right in front of me.

I tried, but I just couldn't handle working there after that. There are some things that you just can't unsee.

October 8, 2010 at 5:18 a.m.
woody said...

Well, I must say, after perusing all of the overnight comments made by a few of you..Bravo!!

Right or wrong, no one will ever be able to say 'posters' on this site don't have the courage of their convictions.

I'd take my hat off to all of you, but I haven't yet put it on.

Sleep well, my friends, Woody

October 8, 2010 at 6:22 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Indeed, woody. I have learned a lot reading these posts.

October 8, 2010 at 7:05 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I have to agree with alprova on one thing though: nothing makes me angrier than people thinking that they are better then someone because they do a particular job or make a particular wage. I see this in college-bound or college students. Opportunity and parental means plays such a huge part; most successful people now are that way because of the head start their circumstances offered them. Most of us are a car accident or serious illness away from a lower economic standing.

Our students (private high school) work in the kitchen for their first year washing dishes and scraping plates. All help somewhere, cleaning floors, washing windows, etc. They get to know the staff in physical plant, clerical and food service; they grow up less likely to look down their noses at those in service jobs.

October 8, 2010 at 7:31 a.m.
Oz said...

lkeithlu.... I agree with you 100% on: nothing makes me angrier than people thinking that they are better then someone because they do a particular job or make a particular wage.

My daughters went to private to school and I made sure they knew they were no better than anyone else. One of them recently changed jobs. While eating lunch in the break room she introduced herself to and shared a table with the custodian. The lady told her she had worked for this (so-called) professional group for two years and no one had ever spoken to her in a non-business conversation. My daughter was the first. I was thinking....Yes, I did something right.

October 8, 2010 at 8:23 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

blackwater wrote: "Please present data suggesting that trickle down economics has benefitted anyone but a millionaire or billionaire."

I already did. Communism/socialism is trickle up. Capitalism is trickle down. When you have a side-by-side comparison capitalism is always the winning strategy even for the lowest on the economic ladder. (North vs South Korea, East vs West Germany).

Now that the United States is a previously capitalist nation heavily saddled with socialism it is struggling with competing with countries like China that have incredibly cheap labor and are adopting limited capitalism.

Again, how obvious does it have to be? Sometimes I have to think that a progressive could be slapped squarely in the face with reality and still continue to babble on about their social utopia.

October 8, 2010 at 9:12 a.m.
Clara said...

I don't believe that Bank of America was the only one who hired "robots".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01/bank-of-america-foreclosures-halt-23-states_n_747669.html

October 8, 2010 at 9:48 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Yes, Oz, you did something right! Congratulations for raising a fine daughter.

October 8, 2010 at 10:07 a.m.
Francis said...

"babble on about their social utopia" perfect.

it goes againt common sense, history and logic to believe trickle up econonomics works.

it also is naive or ignorant to believe communism or socialism doesn't have an elitest class. capitalism is a great equalizer...anyone who works hard, has ideas and is enterprising can succeed. you don't have to come from wealth. socialism and communism is about control.

October 8, 2010 at 10:26 a.m.
Musicman375 said...

lkeithlu and Oz, thank you for your posts this morning. I completely agree. Coincidentally, I was having this very conversation with a co-worker after a meeting this morning, just before reading your posts. I was so shocked yet pleased when one of the senior vp's here at work engaged me in an interesting, non work related conversation one day. I didn't expect it, but when I realized he didn't care what my title is, the initial distraction was gone and we had a pleasant discussion.

I always go out of my way to show people in lower pay brackets than me that I am no better than they are. It really irks me to see executives walking around in their suits with their noses stuck in the air, doing all they can to avoid conversations with the rest of us. What makes me more angry than that is to see people who do the type of work I do being rude to custodial staff. Those people should really know better.

My parents were always proponents of the same attitude we three share, and it has made me so much more appreciative of all different kinds of people in this world.

Anyway, back on topic. Thanks to everyone in the past few hours for all the info on the business world and taxes. I've learned a good bit.

October 8, 2010 at 10:27 a.m.
BobMKE said...

What is lacking in today's workforce is the lack of pride. No matter what our professions/jobs/duties are, we should always remember, We can't all do great things, but we can always do the little things in a great way. Wouldn't it be great if everyone taught this to their children?

October 8, 2010 at 10:35 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

I think if you want to know the health and integrity of any institution or company, ask the folks that empty the trash and clean the restrooms.

October 8, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

Workplace dynamics, respect for co-workers up or down the corporate ladder is nice but some of you let yourselves get distracted by this and loose the forest in the trees.

I see some are insisting on ignoring the trickle up (North Korea) verses the trickle down (South Korea) and apparently want to talk about dignity of the janitor.

Tell you what comrades. I would much rather be a janitor in South Korea than in North Korea.

Maybe you think the example is not relevent to the greater or lesser degrees of penetration of socialism in our own country. Maybe you think there is not a "linear" relationship between the extremes and there are some inflections in the model between extremes....

Cr*p. I am kidding myself. Anyone that would go on about the dignity of the janitor after being challenged to compare the obvious extremes has no hope of understanding incremental response and modeling between the extremes.

October 8, 2010 at 11:23 a.m.
woody said...

I must admit the 'posts' since early Thursday have been as divergent as I have ever seen..at least here. And since there have been many words written, since last evening, regarding jobs from the top of the ladder down, and their respective worth, I thought I might add two of my favorite quotes.

The first is from William J. Bennett, "There are no menial jobs, only menial attitudes." The other was left to us by Theodore Roosevelt. Who said, "Far and away the best prize that life has to offer is the chance to work hard at work worth doing."

To that end, it has always been my contention, it makes no difference if you dig ditches, build bridges, or sit at the head of a boardroom. If you are happy doing what you do and doing something which will further your cause, you are right where The Almighty wants you to be and that should be enough to make anyone feel important.

'Nuff said, Woody

October 8, 2010 at noon
SCOTTYM said...

I'm sitting here wondering how my comment about different people doing different jobs adding more or less value to society and therefore receiving more or less monetary compensation, got turned around into "some individuals have more value than others".

I never wrote, nor implied such.

Does anyone actually think that a janitor is adding the same value to society as a cardiac surgeon?

While I agree that every individual is precious, and we are all equally valuable, some people are doing jobs that anyone with half of a brain can do, and others spend a large portion of their lives acquiring the education needed to perform very complex procedures.

Is replacing the toilet paper as important to society as bypass surgery?

The compensation is different because the value being added by the function is different, not because the individual doing the job is more or less valuable.

I've been that guy cooking the fries at Krystal.

I've also been the guy managing a staff of 50+ people.

Neither one changed my value as an individual, but one had a much greater impact on the lives of others, and contributed more to society. The compensation was different because of this very fact.

Does anyone seriously believe that a fry cook and a cardiac surgeon should be compensated the same amount?

October 8, 2010 at 12:43 p.m.
whoknows said...

Scotty, I read all these posts a little bit ago and was going to come in and say what you just said. I never took, for your earlier comment, that you said one is better than the other or has more value than the other.
I currently work two jobs. One for an insurance company doing a job most people wouldn't understand no matter how I explained it... and the other job is working at a chain restaurant. I'm an assistant manager there, but I've been a fry cook as well. I understand that both jobs are important to the company at that moment... however, if I walk away from the fries cause I'm tired of it or feel disrespected, well, any one in that store can come over and do my job and no one would notice I quit, other than to say "that was rude." If I walk away from my job in the insurance company, they will get backed up with the work not being done and have to spend months training someone else on how to do what I was doing. I get compansated justly at each task. I was neither a better, nor worse person for doing any job. However, my skill set is different for each job. That is what (I believe) Scotty was also implying, as well as how valuable to society their job was.

October 8, 2010 at 1:12 p.m.
Rivieravol said...

Bennett is an idiot. It's pretty obvious he didn't take Economics at the great bastion of Higher Education, the University of North Alabama, he attended.

I find it amusing this particular cartoon came out the day before the latest job report showed the Obama Economic effort resulted in 91,000 jobs cut last month.

The only jobs the Community Organizer knows how to create are useless Govt jobs. How is this ,"changey," thing working for you Obama supporters?

October 8, 2010 at 1:20 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Yes, scotty and whoknows, I agree. I wasn't trying to say anything against what either of you are saying. My only point was that people don't need to look down on other people simply because of the job title they hold. Unfortunately, people do that all the time and it makes me angry when I see it.

October 8, 2010 at 1:22 p.m.
alprova said...

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "Now that the United States is a previously capitalist nation heavily saddled with socialism it is struggling with competing with countries like China that have incredibly cheap labor and are adopting limited capitalism."


A few thoughts regarding that statement;

We had more Socialism going on in the sixties and the seventies, if you think about it, and this nation was more productive and people had more to their name. The recipients of that socialism were shut away in ghettos and towers. It's a little more in your face nowadays.

What political party has worked to ship those jobs to China, while creating the favorable environment that allows Corporations to ship what they produce back into this country to be sold to all of us?

It doggone sure is not the Democrats.


"Again, how obvious does it have to be? Sometimes I have to think that a progressive could be slapped squarely in the face with reality and still continue to babble on about their social utopia."


Well let me slap you across the face with some more reality.

Unbridled Capitalism or GREED, if you will, caused me and millions of others to lose their jobs early last year. It caused me to lose 40% of my investments by April of last year. I make a third of what I did, prior to last year.

I'm one of those Americans who has no health insurance, who cannot afford to purchase health insurance, and who lives in a state that refuses to set up a pool of insurance that I might could afford. The Republican majority in my state won't hear of it.

A third of my clients, who previously heavily invested in the Stock Market, decided to pull out altogether until the markets stabilize, and have converted their portfolios to more safe and guaranteed returns on investment, albeit extremely minute returns on those investments.

In time, people's heads will roll, trials will be held, and all will come out as to what caused this mess. The only reason that it hasn't come to light yet, in my opinion, is because our Government, in their wisdom, doesn't want to upset the apple cart and create a panic.

I loathe the Republicans at the moment, I don't care who they are, and although my votes are largely a waste of time, I'm still going to vote against every last one of them until they wake up and smell the coffee and start to represent the PEOPLE of this nation, rather than their wealthy friends and corporate disguised contributors.

October 8, 2010 at 1:54 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "I think you've lost a few years somewhere. And, by the way, who insisted upon those timebombs?"


I've already told you. Gramm-Leach-Bliley. You'd like to blame Clinton for that, I know. Clinton didn't want to sign the Community Reinvestment Act as it was written. He's spoken to that fact many times since he left office.

But you know what? As much as you'd like to offer it, It wasn't all those ARM's that busted the market. Only 6% of 20% of the market included those loans, and were in default in 2005 - 2007.

What busted the market were the fraudulent loans given to "Flippers," who walked away from homes that they could not sell when the housing market nosedived. Most of them had possession of up to half a dozen properties, a fact hidden from many of the lenders who held those mortgages. Other banks were well aware of that fact. Blame mortgage brokers, who were very much involved in those frauds, and for pushing ARMS without full disclosure.

Don't blame the people who's only dream was to own a home of their own. They tried to hang on to them. Blame those who manipulated the housing market by infusing helium into it until the balloon burst.


"The Democrats were elected BECAUSE the economy went south."

In 2006 when they assumed power in the house and the senate the economy was rockin'.

The economy was not on a southern trajectory until the dems were in place."


We were a year into the housing collapse. It fully blossomed in 2007.

I'm not about to dig up all the evidence right now, but I will pose a question to you. If what you state was the fact, then how and why did the Democrats take all those seats that year, and why have they held on to them, for the most part, and why will they still hang on to that majority next month?

Politicians are not displaced when things are good. And people, much like myself, are well aware of what happened and how it happened.

You're not getting the keys back to drive this country back into the ditch again, next month, or in two years either.

There is not so much as one Republican who will win against Obama, no matter how hard they try.

Mark my word.


"I think you might need to sue your timepiece, as your timeline is screwed up."


While I realize that this is a popular sales tactic being used by the Republicans to hide their complicity in all that has happened, I don't think too many people are buying it.

And while I'd love nothing more than to spend an hour or two, doing the research necessary to shred your argument, I am limited at the moment on time. I have to catch a plane in a few hours and will not be back until Saturday night.

October 8, 2010 at 2:31 p.m.
alprova said...

BobMKE wrote: "What is lacking in today's workforce is the lack of pride."


Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, or were you not aware of that?

October 8, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "I'm sitting here wondering how my comment about different people doing different jobs adding more or less value to society and therefore receiving more or less monetary compensation, got turned around into "some individuals have more value than others"."


What you said was that those at top earners are "MORE PRODUCTIVE." Money was not on my mind at all. Your response to my being outraged at your choice of wording is the problem.

You Sir, are no more productive than the workers you hire to do the menial labor required to get the job done. The only difference is who is paid what for their productive efforts.

October 8, 2010 at 3 p.m.
wallyworld said...

For francis sasquach, rivieraredneck and the rest of the brainwashed idiots on here: you are so typical of the GOP / Teabaggers, etc. Airhead, know it all (nothing worthwhile above the neck), me, me, me, mine, ... I most likely have more net worth than any one of you. I could just sit back and live like a Republican thinks they can, except for one thing, I have a conscience! I care about the people of this country and the people of the world! You sit at the hateful liars Limbaugh, fox 'news' postiers and gobble their excrement, spewing it everywhere. You are so hateful, anti-American, anti-human that it is disgraceful!

October 8, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.
whoknows said...

Right Al, None of us should have pride in our work. It's a horrible thing to want to do the best you can in your line of work, no matter what it is. We should all hate what we do and do the bare minimum to get by (but still get paid the same). No one should love their job. It's sinful to do so. I hate it when I go somewhere and see a cashier who is cheerful and willing to help me out and be friendly when I am checking out. I much prefer them to glare at me and not say a word to me. After all, it's my fault for imposing on them and making them actually have to work while doing their job. I feel horrible when I do that.

October 8, 2010 at 3:14 p.m.
whoknows said...

Wow, wally... I was just blown away by your care and conscience. Your level of care is apparently unprecedented. Truly wonderful to hear someone like you...

October 8, 2010 at 3:19 p.m.
acerigger said...

In a far weaker than expected report released this morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics calculated a seasonally adjusted net loss of 95,000 jobs for September based on its Establishment Survey. The private sector added a modest 64,000 jobs, but 77,000 lay-offs at the Census and another 76,000 in state and local government kept the overall numbers in negative territory for the fourth month in a row. Discounting the Census lay-offs, the economy lost 18,000 jobs. The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for August was revised from minus 54,000 to minus plus 57,000, and the change for July was revised from minus 54,000 to minus 66,000.

Based on its Household Survey, the BLS put the official unemployment rate, U3, at 9.6 percent, unchanged since August. An alternative measure, U6, which includes Americans too discouraged to continue looking for work and part-time workers who want but cannot find full-time work, surged to 17.1 percent. A year ago, that figure was 16.1 percent.

This puts the official number of unemployed Americans at 14.8 million. One of the most troubling parts of today's report comes from the cuts in state and local governments. Experts are predicting that some 900,000 jobs could be lost in the next two years because of state budget shortfalls.It's a mess that covers far more than a stuck unemployment rate and all those out-of-work and part-time workers who want to be full time. The endless litany has become all too familiar. Decades of stagnant wages. Dwindling benefits. Growing poverty. Two-tiered hiring practices. Union-busting. The perniciousness of the long-term upward transfer of wealth. Off-shoring of jobs. Trade policy that makes life better for the pampered corporate elite and worse for those who earn their living on wages. And all-too-little attention paid to figuring out how to generate a sustainable global economy within a sustainable environment that isn’t bludgeoned by reckless overconsumption

October 8, 2010 at 3:34 p.m.
Francis said...

so now obama and the liberals are attacking the chambers of commerce. calling them a corporate tool. that's good timing.

what a dope. he really is delusional.

how's that going to help the democrats' overcome their well deserved image of being anti-business.

...poor babies.."budget shortfalls"....it's "troubling" that state and local gov- ernments are cutting things? you think that's troubling? why, everyone else has to streamline...there are no guarantees....it's time for the big government gravy train to derail. i bleed for them.....many government jobs can be done away with.

October 8, 2010 at 3:55 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

alprova wrote: "You Sir, are no more productive than the workers you hire to do the menial labor required to get the job done."

alprova, That shows a great deal of naïveté on your part, and a total lack of understanding of value in the various roles people play. I hear this kind of argument from progressives all of the time. Everyone makes a contribution that has value, but all of those menial labor guys would be standing around doing nothing if someone did not take the initiative to form a business and offer them a job. That makes the leader more valuable than the laborer.

How about you go and find the capital to open a McDonalds franchise and work the 12 hour days required to get it going and then come to appreciate that most of the idiots you hire at minimum wage can't count out change nor seem to be able to tell the difference between unsweet tea and sweet tea.

I bet the first thing that will pop into your mind is that if you just paid them all the same amount of money that you (hoped to) made all would be right with the world and your business would thrive.

You crack me up!

October 8, 2010 at 4:09 p.m.
Sailorman said...

To read the entire article acerigger referenced above, and the interesting comments that followed it, go here: (It even has graphs)

Crunch. Another rotten jobs report. U6 surges to 17.1%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/10/8/908688/-Crunch.-Another-rotten-jobs-report.-U6-surges-to-17.1

October 8, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Truman - Down Eisenhower - Down Kennedy - Down Johnson - Down Nixon - Down Ford - Up slightly Carter - Down slightly Reagan - Way up Bush I - Still rising Clinton - Down Bush II - Up


DUH !!!!

October 8, 2010 at 4:51 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Username: wallyworld | On: October 8, 2010 at 3:02 p.m.


Wally you're anti-common sense !

October 8, 2010 at 4:53 p.m.
FM_33 said...

http://www.dailykos.org/story/2010/10/8/... Username: Sailorman | On: October 8, 2010 at 4:15 p.m.


Saliorman you forgot to let up your sail's this morning. This is the correct link and check out what the reporter said after she was off camera.

October 8, 2010 at 4:56 p.m.
FM_33 said...

http://www.willisms.cc/archives/2001/12... Username: reaganwasright | On: October 7, 2010 at 6:52 p.m.


This is a link about Reagan that you will enjoy !

October 8, 2010 at 4:58 p.m.
FM_33 said...

Pride is one of the seven deadly sins, or were you not aware of that? Username: alprova | On: October 8, 2010 at 2:35 p.m.


When Alprova post it is a deadly sin.

October 8, 2010 at 5 p.m.
Sailorman said...

FM

Wouldn't be the first time

Did you forget to include the link?

October 8, 2010 at 5 p.m.
FM_33 said...

I don't believe that Bank of America was the only one who hired "robots".

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/01... Username: Clara | On: October 8, 2010 at 9:48 a.m.


Wells Fargo did thge same thing back in 1976 in Kansas City MO and here's the link Clara.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/archives.1976/2010/10/01...

October 8, 2010 at 5:03 p.m.
FM_33 said...

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer Username: whoknows | On: October 7, 2010 at 9:50 a.m.


http://www.taxthecow.org/site/Pageserver

Is another link and the one you should have place up here to show people a better example of what you was talking about.

October 8, 2010 at 5:06 p.m.
FM_33 said...

FM

Wouldn't be the first time

Did you forget to include the link? Username: Sailorman | On: October 8, 2010 at 5 p.m.


LOL.......made you look !

October 8, 2010 at 5:07 p.m.
Francis said...

i read that majority whip cliburn, maybe the second dumbest person in congress, next to nancy pelosi, wants congress to investigate the chamber of commerce. yeah, that's worthy of spending tax dollars on. this house class, the current democrrat majority in the house, are the dumbest in american history.

October 8, 2010 at 8:53 p.m.
ITguy said...

The Chamber of Commerce is spending 75 million dollars on campaign ads. Most of the money came from foreign sources. Almost all going to republicans. I think tkat is worthy of investigation.

October 8, 2010 at 9:26 p.m.
Clara said...

FM,

Did you think I would lose my temper and leave the blog if you sent me three meaningless links.

One came up and had nothing to do with Robots in the banking system.

The banks hired them on your money gained from the government. They probably hoped they could sell them again.

They sure own a great deal of our, the people's, property!

Do you like the way that worked? That's Trickle Down?

Feel free to make a comment or correct me.

October 8, 2010 at 10:10 p.m.
Clara said...

Somewhere or other, when I was young, and we still had Stalin to contend with, someone came up with the the following concoction in propaganda.

As I remember, it went something like this:

If all the wealth of the world was distributed equally throughout the entire population of the world, everyone would get a dollar. I think gasoline was still available at around 25 cents a gallon or less.

I really didn't know the population of the world then, exactly, nor do I know it now.

I wonder what that particular economics advisor would assign to us now.

Very confused, as usual...C:-)

October 8, 2010 at 10:29 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Clara,

LOL!

F.Y.I. > Stalin is a role model for many of the folks around here. They adhere to the same economic and social philosophies. It's dressed up in it's Sunday best, but it is the same central control statism underneath.

October 9, 2010 at 1:16 a.m.
AndrewLohr said...

Suckers? Those who voted for Obama to balance the budget and reduce unemployment? So far, the Democrats have done even worse than the recent GOP at both of those.

The US economy grew faster A.D. 1840-1860 than it has grown in any 20-year period since. Maybe if we got rid of more than half the Cabinet departments, and let banks print their own money, as was done in those days, we'd grow our economy faster. (Getting rid of slavery was an improvement, but what do you call it when governments take what you make and tell you what to do?)

October 9, 2010 at 4:50 a.m.
wallyworld said...

whoknows, thank you! We need Democrats to be Democrats and not Repuke light. I wanted to counteract this idiotic line of "class warfare" which has morphed into "class envy" -- how absurd. As far as any kind of answer from FM_33 or any other low information voter, nothing but the same old tired, ridiculous "bumper sticker" mentality.

October 9, 2010 at 7:54 a.m.
Sailorman said...

WW

"Repuke light"

"typical of the GOP / Teabaggers, etc. Airhead, know it all (nothing worthwhile above the neck), me, me, me, mine, ?'

Perhaps you should use some of "most likely have more net worth than any one of you" to get a clue.

You seem to have more than a passing acquaintance with "the same old tired, ridiculous "bumper sticker" mentality."

October 9, 2010 at 4:44 p.m.
acerigger said...

To anyone who thinks that Pres.Obama is a "dummy" or un-intelligent,your problem is that you're too stupid to believe there is such a thing as smart people.

October 9, 2010 at 5:29 p.m.
rolando said...

Actually, ace, I think Maobama is one smart cookie.

He told us well ahead of time that he was going to essentially destroy the America we all knew, and he pretty much has...with a bit of help.

He knows exactly how to use the Constitution to his advantage -- or I should say he uses what the Constitution does NOT say to his advantage. Other Presidents have done that too, but NOt to the destructive extent this one has.

Our industry has disappeared forever, our money is becoming wallpaper, the government is now the largest employer, taxes are skyrocketing, we lost the concept of "private property", our borders are non-existent, voter fraud/terrorism is rampant, etc., etc.

Hopefully it isn't quite too late to stop the madman through the ballotbox. It took Stalin's and Hitler's deaths and Castro's poor health and age to stop them. Tyranical regimes like theirs could happen here quite easily...it already is happening.

October 9, 2010 at 7:22 p.m.
alprova said...

whoknows wrote: "Right Al, None of us should have pride in our work. It's a horrible thing to want to do the best you can in your line of work, no matter what it is."


You're confused. Doing your job to the best of your ability and being prideful are two distinct and separate things.

We are all expected to perform the duties of our jobs to the best of our abilities. Thinking that you do your job better than your peers, and that you are somehow irreplaceable is the very definition of sinful pride.


"We should all hate what we do and do the bare minimum to get by (but still get paid the same). No one should love their job. It's sinful to do so."


Who said that loving your job and doing it well is sinful? The problem begins when you think that because you love your job and do it well, that this somehow deserves some special form of recognition, accommodation, or compensation.


"I hate it when I go somewhere and see a cashier who is cheerful and willing to help me out and be friendly when I am checking out. I much prefer them to glare at me and not say a word to me. After all, it's my fault for imposing on them and making them actually have to work while doing their job. I feel horrible when I do that."


That sounds like a personal problem to me.

Doing a good job or being good at your job doesn't require an ounce of pride. You can be quite humble, happy, and content to do what is expected of you, because it is your job to provide that friendliness, a smile of appreciation, and to provide any assistance to a customer in need of it.

October 9, 2010 at 10:18 p.m.
alprova said...

I previously wrote: "You Sir, are no more productive than the workers you hire to do the menial labor required to get the job done." ~~~~~~

BigRidgePatriot wrote: "alprova, That shows a great deal of naïveté on your part, and a total lack of understanding of value in the various roles people play. I hear this kind of argument from progressives all of the time. Everyone makes a contribution that has value, but all of those menial labor guys would be standing around doing nothing if someone did not take the initiative to form a business and offer them a job. That makes the leader more valuable than the laborer."


There's a flip side to that equation. An employer offering jobs, unable to find employees to do that work, is quite worthless and rather useless.

What do you think led to slavery in this country, way back when? Mr. Cotton Plantation owner wasn't going to get out there in those fields and pick that cotton himself, and he couldn't find people to pick it for peanuts, so he devised another method to find the menial labor to get the job done, and maximize his profits.


"How about you go and find the capital to open a McDonalds franchise and work the 12 hour days required to get it going and then come to appreciate that most of the idiots you hire at minimum wage can't count out change nor seem to be able to tell the difference between unsweet tea and sweet tea."


Right there is the difference between you and I. I would not staff a franchise I owned with minimum wage personnel.

You get what you pay for. It's as simple as that.

I've been an employer, and when I was, I chose my people well and I paid them well. That strategy headed off all kinds of problems. I rarely had to hire anyone because someone quit. I never once had to deal with property theft by any employee. I didn't shut myself up in an office, never speaking to those who worked for me. We were a team at all times.


"I bet the first thing that will pop into your mind is that if you just paid them all the same amount of money that you (hoped to) made all would be right with the world and your business would thrive."


Say what you want. Believe what you wish.

The bottom line is that if you are looking to pay people a bottom barrel wage, don't be too surprised if you wind up with a bottom barrel employee. That's what you are paying for.

Employers who try to get by with paying bottom barrel wages are very much like someone who, in the dead of winter, opens all of their windows, sets the thermostat for 75 degrees, and expects their house to be warm and toasty. Then when the power bill comes in, they are scratching their heads and wondering why the bill is so outrageous.

October 9, 2010 at 10:58 p.m.
alprova said...

AndrewLohr wrote: "Suckers? Those who voted for Obama to balance the budget and reduce unemployment? So far, the Democrats have done even worse than the recent GOP at both of those."


The last time this happened, it took ten years to reverse the effects of what led to our economy collapsing.

Expecting miracles or thinking that 16 years of siphoning off the assets of millions of Americans, to be rectified in less than two years, is completely ignorant on the part of those who think it could have been done, or worse, as it is in your case, bearing false witness.


"The US economy grew faster A.D. 1840-1860 than it has grown in any 20-year period since."


What does that statement, which was written as an opinion to a New York Times article back in April of this year, have to do with anything?


"Maybe if we got rid of more than half the Cabinet departments, and let banks print their own money, as was done in those days, we'd grow our economy faster."


Yes...that worked out so well for the Confederate states, didn't it?


"(Getting rid of slavery was an improvement, but what do you call it when governments take what you make and tell you what to do?)"


They take what you make and tell you what to do? Wow, are you getting a raw deal.

They only get a small sliver of mine, and I'm pretty much free to do what I want, within reason of course.

October 9, 2010 at 11:19 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

How's the hotel Al?

October 10, 2010 at 12:52 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

YOU misconstrued whokows' comment about taking pride in one's work into being the sin of pride. I took it that he/she was commenting about the pursuit of excellence.

It's in the text above. I could spend the time cut-n-pastin it into quotes, but it would be wasted on you. -- -- Then...

YOU wrote,

"The problem begins when you think that because you love your job and do it well, that this somehow deserves some special form of recognition, accommodation, or compensation."

A bit later YOU wrote,

"The bottom line is that if you are looking to pay people a bottom barrel wage, don't be too surprised if you wind up with a bottom barrel employee. That's what you are paying for."

Logic = Fail

It can't be both. Either the employee who takes pride in the job and strives for excellence (the kind you hire) should expect/deserves extra compensation, or employees are equally productive and should be compensated equally.

Again, it can't be both. You're arguing with yourself again.

I agree that you get what you pay for when it comes to workers/employees, and that is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote about differing levels of value added to society. More value added = more currency deserved.

The average fry cook doesn't get compensated as much as the guy who fixes the brakes on your car, but a really good fryguy at the right place can make 3-4 times as much as the average fryguy.

The pursuit of excellence can be a lucrative endeavor, no matter one's current station in life.

October 10, 2010 at 1:33 a.m.
SCOTTYM said...

woody,

10-7-10 at 7:59 a.m. wrote,

"It was never meant to be anything but a Conservative way of saying, "What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours as well, until we decide otherwise."

I'll admit the translation may not be exact, in its wording,..."

- -

I'm going to do the word substitution test on this.


"It was never meant to be anything but a Socialist way of saying, "What's ours is ours, and what's yours is ours as well, until we decide otherwise."

//Yes

We'll let you keep that which you contribute,

as we deem appropriate,

because your work belongs to us by default.//

- -

When I work my behind off, I loathe mere talk of paying anymore government taxes than I currently pay, simply because of the waste in the systems(bureaucracies).

Central control does not benefit the average person.

-

It only benefits those at the very top, and those who are a part of the machine.

To heck with everyone else.

P.S. I admire your fire.

October 10, 2010 at 3 a.m.
anniebelle said...

rolando, I would like to know where you went to school to get that degree in idiocy. I must have missed that speech by our president about how he was 'going to destroy this country' -- who writes your garbage for you, cuckoointheouthouse -- no, I know, it's the oxycotin king himself, Rush Limbaugh. We are aware of Rush's drug induced fantasies, but he makes a ton of money at it -- I'm willing to bet you don't.

October 10, 2010 at 6:16 a.m.
acerigger said...

I recollect Pres. Obama saying "I'm gonna change the way Washington works",nothing about "destroying the country". As for your statement "Our industry has disappeared forever, our money is becoming wallpaper, the government is now the largest employer, taxes are skyrocketing, we lost the concept of "private property", our borders are non-existent, voter fraud/terrorism is rampant, etc., etc",you would do well to look at the actions of the "corporatists" who've been running things for decades,Repub and Dem alike.

October 10, 2010 at 10:47 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "YOU misconstrued whokows' comment about taking pride in one's work into being the sin of pride. I took it that he/she was commenting about the pursuit of excellence."


If that's what he/she meant, then he/she should have used the phrase "pursuit of excellence." He/she chose the word pride.


Then...

YOU wrote,

"The problem begins when you think that because you love your job and do it well, that this somehow deserves some special form of recognition, accommodation, or compensation."

A bit later YOU wrote,

"The bottom line is that if you are looking to pay people a bottom barrel wage, don't be too surprised if you wind up with a bottom barrel employee. That's what you are paying for."

Logic = Fail

It can't be both. Either the employee who takes pride in the job and strives for excellence (the kind you hire) should expect/deserves extra compensation, or employees are equally productive and should be compensated equally.

Again, it can't be both. You're arguing with yourself again."


No. You're arguing with me. There is no confusion on my part. If an employee feels that they DESERVE more, simply for doing their job well, then that is a problem.

One who is OFFERED a higher salary for their work record is far different than a worker DEMANDING more money because they think they deserve it.


"I agree that you get what you pay for when it comes to workers/employees, and that is exactly what I was referring to when I wrote about differing levels of value added to society."


We're right back around the circle Scott, because I don't care who you are, what you earn, or what your accomplishments may be, your Earthly "value" means nothing when it comes to your soul.

As I stated earlier, and will now make more clear on your terms -- You come to Earth with nothing and you leave with nothing, in terms of monetary value.


"More value added = more currency deserved."


And again Scott, what makes you better than the workers you hire to lay down that asphalt? What makes you more "valuable?" And what makes you worth more in terms of currency?

You provide the job, sure. But they do the work. Without them, you couldn't get the work done. But jobs are hard to come by right now, so you're playing the market.

And if the Republicans have their way, that's the way they will keep it too. That keeps wages down and people begging, scratching, and clawing for what they can find.

Zack Wamp made that clear enough.


"The pursuit of excellence can be a lucrative endeavor, no matter one's current station in life."


Substitute the word "money" for "excellence" and you have it just about right.

October 10, 2010 at 12:22 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

"And again Scott, what makes you better than the workers you hire to lay down that asphalt? What makes you more "valuable?" And what makes you worth more in terms of currency?"

Goodness gracious, Al. Have you not figured this out yet! If he hadn't taken the initiative to invest the money into that company and provide that service to society, those workers who are currently laying his asphalt wouldn't have a job otherwise... Which is just it, he creates the jobs. He's an enabler for many people. Let's pay him more so he'll stay around and hopefully keep working with the drive and financial backing needed to continue expanding and creating more jobs for their friends and neighbors. He brings more value to society than the guy who is just paving the road.

And this is just one example of that. Scotty mentioned the supervisor at the nuclear power plant earlier. He gets paid more than his subordinates because if something goes wrong, it's his but on the line, not their's. Couple that responsibility/accountability with the fact that he is also a supervisor. Or do you think supervisors in regular businesses should be paid the same as their subordinates? I don't. It's because of that responsibility thingy again.

October 10, 2010 at 12:52 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

No one but you ever said anything about anyone being "better" than anyone else. You're so busy spinning in circles that you've lost track of what was written in the previous posts.

I know that reading comprehension is difficult for you, but do try to pay attention.

Those who produce more value for society, are entitled to more compensation from society in the form of monetary gain.

I can't make it any clearer than that.

The idea of this apparently drives you crazy. Could it be cognitive dissonance? You want to have the best employees you can find, and are willing to pay top dollar for them, but it doesn't fit with your socialist "everyone is equally productive and deserves equal pay" philosophy.

If all workers are equally productive, then please explain why you pay your employees higher than average wages.

October 10, 2010 at 12:57 p.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "No one but you ever said anything about anyone being "better" than anyone else. You're so busy spinning in circles that you've lost track of what was written in the previous posts."


And you keep changing and deflecting what you said. The challenge was to your use of the word "productive." You stated that you were a more productive member of society.

You're not.


"Those who produce more value for society, are entitled to more compensation from society in the form of monetary gain.

I can't make it any clearer than that."


Entitled huh? I thought you right-wingers hated that word.


"The idea of this apparently drives you crazy. Could it be cognitive dissonance? You want to have the best employees you can find, and are willing to pay top dollar for them, but it doesn't fit with your socialist "everyone is equally productive and deserves equal pay" philosophy."


Please quote any sentence I have ever written that states that I am for equal pay for anyone. I never wrote it.


"If all workers are equally productive, then please explain why you pay your employees higher than average wages."


Again, when did I write any sentence stating that all workers are equally productive? I never wrote it.

If you can't stick to the subject at hand, and are only capable of deflecting and attributing words to people that they never wrote, then you're not going to find people willing to take you seriously.

You do think you're better than your workers, and for some strange reason, you even think you are more productive, even though they do the work.

How often do you find yourself replacing your workers? I'll bet quite often.

October 10, 2010 at 2:38 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al wrote,

"You stated that you were a more productive member of society.

You're not."

--Then..

"Again, when did I write any sentence stating that all workers are equally productive? I never wrote it."

--

Those were both in the same post.

Unless you are singling me out as not being more productive than other workers(because you say so), you are still stuck in the cognitively dissonant position of saying that all workers are equally productive, except the ones who are more productive.

If I've misconstrued what you wrote, then by all means, illuminate me with your reasons for paying employees more than the minimum wage.

It couldn't have anything to do with their productivity, could it?

Are you dizzy from spinning so much?

October 10, 2010 at 5:50 p.m.
acerigger said...

Why not pay a livable minimum wage?

October 11, 2010 at 12:39 a.m.
alprova said...

Scott wrote: "Unless you are singling me out as not being more productive than other workers(because you say so), you are still stuck in the cognitively dissonant position of saying that all workers are equally productive, except the ones who are more productive."


I'm not "stuck" with anything.

You are the one who is claiming that money is the determining factor as to who is more or less a productive member of society. I have stated several times that productivity is not determined by what one makes or takes from any proceeds of a business.


"If I've misconstrued what you wrote, then by all means, illuminate me with your reasons for paying employees more than the minimum wage."


Again, you are the one who feels that money is the sole factor as to who is more productive a member of society.

Using your criteria, then am I to assume that Bernie Madoff, by virtue of the money that he siphoned off from his business venture, is a vastly more productive member of society than you are?

Oh...what he did was illegal. That doesn't count. Okay, lets find another example or two.

Perhaps you feel that people who set up payday loan ventures, who charge 400% plus in interest charges, are much more deserving and praise-worthy members of society.

You must be green with envy of the hundreds, if not thousands, of entrepreneurs who set up 'legal' multi-level marketing businesses to convince people to 'invest' money to into what is sold to them as opportunities to own their own home-based businesses.

Are these kind of people you consider to be productive members of society? They make lots of money.


"It couldn't have anything to do with their productivity, could it?"


Anyone who has followed this debate, has witnessed your feeble attempt to change your core argument, to twist it around, and to offer something completely different than what you said from the get-go.

You complained that a proposed tax increase of 3% on the "most productive members of society" was a bad idea. You are the one who claimed that a more productive member of society was defined as someone who makes more money.

I stated that when I employed people, I selected them with due care and that I paid them them a living wage, and to further define that, it was not necessarily done to exact any measure of increased physical or mental productivity out of them.

I did it because I believe, and have proven to my own satisfaction, that by paying a worker a decent wage and by treating them as virtual partners in a business venture, that they are loyal, dependable, and extremely content workers. That was a far better return on my investment than any employer who attempts to pay bottom barrel wages will ever receive.


"Are you dizzy from spinning so much?"


No offense Scott, but I think it's rather clear that I've been rather consistent. You Sir, are the one twirling like a ballerina.

October 11, 2010 at 1:41 a.m.
whoknows said...

This thread might be dead soon, but I had to come back. Since Al is apparently too dense to realize that one word can have multiple meanings, I figured I'd enlighten. Many words have many meanings. Sometimes one word can mean several different things that are closely related, or not related at all... but still are defined in that one word. Let's use an example... how about "Pride"? The definition of Pride: a high or inordinate opinion of one's own dignity, importance, merit, or superiority, whether as cherished in the mind or as displayed in bearing, conduct, etc. (This is what Al is apparently stuck on. Maybe he has issues with this himself).

Other definitions of Pride: pleasure or satisfaction taken in something done by or belonging to oneself or believed to reflect credit upon oneself (this is the definition that BobMKE originally used the word pride for, and that I continued with).

Other definitions of Pride: 1. mettle in a horse. 2. a group of lions. 3. sexual desire, esp. in a female animal.

See Al, it's called using context clues. If someone "takes pride in" or uses the idiom "pride and joy", it is not a boastful sin of overly high self-esteem insisting on self-entitlement. It's finding satisfaction in what you do or what you have. I know that socialism hates that concept, and that is why you insisted it was such a bad thing, but it's not. Believe it or not, there are people who are better at a job than someone else... and it's usually the one who takes pride in his job that is the better one. Do they deserve to be compensated more? Sure as Hades they do.

October 11, 2010 at 9:37 a.m.
alprova said...

whoknows wrote: "Since Al is apparently too dense to realize that one word can have multiple meanings, I figured I'd enlighten. Many words have many meanings. Sometimes one word can mean several different things that are closely related, or not related at all... but still are defined in that one word. Let's use an example... how about "Pride"? The definition of Pride: (snipped)"


I can read Dictionary.com's definitions all day long, and they are fine, but the comment that I made was to recite the fact that "pride" is one of the seven deadly sins, according to the Bible.

When I made that comment, it was not offered to tick anyone off, but since it has become a focus of attention, and because it is very relevant to the discussion as it has evolved, I'll defer to the Bible for my last word on the subject;

1 John 2:16 - "For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world."

1 Corinthians 4:7 - "For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not?"

October 11, 2010 at 7:10 p.m.
whoknows said...

Yeah, you are still stuck on the first definition of Pride. Other verses in the Bible say:

Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might...

Colossians 3:23 Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.

1 Corinthians 10:31 ... whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God.

1 Corinthians 1:31 Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord." (meaning your skills came from God).

Other religions tell you to take pride in your work: Bhagavad Gita 2.48: Do your duty to the best of your ability

Bhagavad Gita 2.50: Working to the best of one’s abilities without becoming selfishly attached to the fruits of work is called Karma-yoga or Seva.

Muhammad said: God blesses those who perfect their craft.

Confucius said: The expectations of life depend upon diligence; the mechanic that would perfect his work must first sharpen his tools. And: Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.

We live in a secular world where all religions don't mesh. Yet, they seem to agree on this.

The secular world understands this, why don't you?

http://www.simplenomics.com/take-pride-in-your-work/

http://employment.families.com/blog/take-pride-in-your-work

All of the above reflect the second definition of pride; and the idiomatic expression "take pride in".
It's not that difficult to understand.

Also, the Bible does not mention "7 Deadly Sins". That was coined by man for illustration purposes, but that is not entirely Biblical.

October 12, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
alprova said...

Look, you be as proud as you wish and of whatever you wish. Take pride in the same. We all have free will.

Consider yourself better, more useful, more entitled, more productive, whatever connotation that gives you comfort and that makes you feel superior.

I'm not arguing about it anymore.

Do you think that you are the only person who disregards specific wording or teachings contained in the Bible, so as to not have to justify their beliefs? You have lots of company.

Be aware of a couple more verses;

Luke 18:22-25

22 When Jesus heard this, He said to him, "One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

23 But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.

24 And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!"

25 "For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

October 12, 2010 at 6:07 p.m.
SCOTTYM said...

Al,

"You are the one who claimed that a more productive member of society was defined as someone who makes more money."

I never made such a claim, nor anything remotely like it.

Go back and read every single word. When you find a quote where I said anything like that, please cut-paste it in here with the time stamp, and I will apologize for thinking that you're going off the deep end with all your commie buddies.

You've been arguing with a figment of your own twisted mind.

I guess the comment about your favorite socialist in chief really hit the button.

October 12, 2010 at 7:43 p.m.
nurseforjustice said...

Alprova, Unless you have done what those verses say, what you are doing is called being a "Hypocrite". You have just quoted verses that have no business in this argument.

Having pride of thinking that you are somehow better than everyone is a sin, no question about it. But having pride in your work, a.k.a. doing the best you can is totally different. I don't see how it can be explained any better than whoknows has done it.

And quite frankly there is an old adage that fits you very well. "Actions speak louder than words." Your posts here in the TFP have always come across as you thinking you know more and are better than everyone else. So in my opinion, you are the epitome of the definition of pride that the Bible is referring to.

Scotty, Your posts continue to be very impressive and informative. Thanks for your contributions.

October 13, 2010 at 12:36 p.m.
Musicman375 said...

Well said, nurse. I know Al is not an idiot. He has to know that whoknows' points and logic make complete sense on this whole pride topic. So that leads me to think he is allowing the very pride against which he is preaching to keep him from admitting he is wrong.

October 13, 2010 at 3:04 p.m.
alprova said...

Nurse wrote: "Alprova, Unless you have done what those verses say, what you are doing is called being a "Hypocrite". You have just quoted verses that have no business in this argument."


One of the reasons why I am not rich, nor likely to ever be rich, is because I have given up the pursuit of worldly goods. I live a VERY meager lifestyle, and have for many years now.

I live it or I wouldn't cite it.


"Having pride of thinking that you are somehow better than everyone is a sin, no question about it. But having pride in your work, a.k.a. doing the best you can is totally different. I don't see how it can be explained any better than whoknows has done it."


And you're entitled to your opinion, just as he/she is. I've offered mine. Pride is a word that I never use to describe any accomplishment I have ever achieved.

If he/she or you wants to be proud, it's not a sliver of skin off of my nose whatsoever. That's between you and the man upstairs.


"And quite frankly there is an old adage that fits you very well. "Actions speak louder than words." Your posts here in the TFP have always come across as you thinking you know more and are better than everyone else."


On the contrary, I'm not better than anyone, nor have I ever ever stated otherwise. I am quite often better prepared to address ignorance, misrepresentation, and outright lies, but I do not take any pride upon myself when I do it. I do it because the truth deserves to be told, and because ignorance deserves to be transformed into a modicum of knowledge.

Your perceptions are not my reality, and they never will be.


"So in my opinion, you are the epitome of the definition of pride that the Bible is referring to."


Your opinion of me is of no consequence. I'm sure the feeling is mutual. The difference between you and I, is that I don't take it personal.

October 14, 2010 at 12:55 a.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »

advertisement
advertisement

Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.