No escaping the FACT that people took on debt they could not afford. THEY SIGNED FOR IT, they are responsiblePureFodder wrote:
Then the irresponsible leders realized that they'd made a huge mistake and collapsed along with a load of businesses that were only being kept in business by relying upon wealth that was created by a housing bubble.lowing wrote:
People didn't start loosing their jobs until the finaciallly irresponsible decided not to pay their bills because they over extended.PureFodder wrote:
If they were earning money that was more consistant with their productivity then they would be able to pay their bills.
Yawn at the jibe. Entitled to work for a living in a world of plenty. That is an entitlement I'm not ashamed of. The alternative of course is to starve to death....lowing wrote:
I didn't know employing 14 people with good paying jobs, as an exploitation. I am guessing you are one of those people in the "entitlement" crowd, scoot over Cam, ya got company. We have another person that thinks people start and build businesses for the purpose of paying people their entitlement.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2009-01-20 07:21:31)
Think we have debated the debt issue before ...lowing wrote:
No escaping the FACT that people took on debt they could not afford. THEY SIGNED FOR IT, they are responsiblePureFodder wrote:
Then the irresponsible leders realized that they'd made a huge mistake and collapsed along with a load of businesses that were only being kept in business by relying upon wealth that was created by a housing bubble.lowing wrote:
People didn't start loosing their jobs until the finaciallly irresponsible decided not to pay their bills because they over extended.
And this post tbh says it all ...
Fancy_Pollux wrote:
Let's assume taxes aren't raised for small businesses. How are they going to survive without a consistent credit line (the one the poorly handled bailout was supposed to free up)? You guys are just nit-picking minute details but failing to see the bigger picture. The entire system needs to be changed.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
No escaping the FACT that the housing bubble was known about for years any yet most businesses did little if anything to protect themselves from the financial tsunami that was predicted when the bubble burst.lowing wrote:
No escaping the FACT that people took on debt they could not afford. THEY SIGNED FOR IT, they are responsiblePureFodder wrote:
Then the irresponsible leders realized that they'd made a huge mistake and collapsed along with a load of businesses that were only being kept in business by relying upon wealth that was created by a housing bubble.lowing wrote:
People didn't start loosing their jobs until the finaciallly irresponsible decided not to pay their bills because they over extended.
LOL, I guess, earn credentials to produce for an employer doesn't matter. An empoyer sole purpose of being to provide jobs with no regard as to what they are paying for? Doesn't sound like a smart business practice Cam, but honestly I wouldn't know, I failed when I tried to start a businessCameronPoe wrote:
Yawn at the jibe. Entitled to work for a living in a world of plenty. That is an entitlement I'm not ashamed of. The alternative of course is to starve to death....lowing wrote:
I didn't know employing 14 people with good paying jobs, as an exploitation. I am guessing you are one of those people in the "entitlement" crowd, scoot over Cam, ya got company. We have another person that thinks people start and build businesses for the purpose of paying people their entitlement.
In theory yes, but businesses are not going to expand and hire more people without the sales figures to go with it. Give the money to the poor, they spend the money at these same businesses who can then justify expanding and hiring more people because there is also an increase in sales.dayarath wrote:
wouldn't it be better to provide businesses with money to expand, hiring more employees? that way you ensure that these people can generate their own money, and have a reliable source of income at that. Moreover you provide the market with jobs. Giving money to someone without a job is hardly stimulating the economy.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
And who gives the businesses the money to pay their employees, lowing?
THE CUSTOMERS
As the Reapster says - giving money to the poor works because they SPEND IT - they spend it on the products that are produced by the companies that, and this is the only correct thing you've stated all thread, do indeed drive the economy.
NO CUSTOMERS (or only 'potential customers' with no money)=NO INCOME=NO COMPANY
It's the same situation as giving a man a fish, so that he can eat for a day - or give him the possibility to fish for himself.
I love it, everyone wants to GIVE the money to poor, and no one mentions EARNING a damn thing. You do realize that there are people WORKING for all of this money of theirs you just want to GIVE away to to those that have not earned it right? God I hate liberals.
Earning?lowing wrote:
I love it, everyone wants to GIVE the money to poor, and no one mentions EARNING a damn thing. You do realize that there are people WORKING for all of this money of theirs you just want to GIVE away to to those that have not earned it right? God I hate liberals.
The boss just told us he's fucking off to the beach and we've all just been fired.
Can't see how we earned that.
It's really simple, when they're aren't a surpluss of jobs there is really no motivation on anyones part to really excell at a job.
If you're an employee and you bust your ass day to day and make sure that your salary and customers are taken care of, there's nothing stating that the employer isn't going to lay you off and get someone for half your pay to service the accounts..
If you're an Employer right now, you have the option of paying someone who might be more qualified less money cause the job market is flooded.
You saw this alot in the IT field, they'd hire an experianced Programmer to start a program and have him contracted to service it as well. But as soon as the program was done, they'd fire him and hire a collage grade for 1/3 rd of the pay.
As far as the debt people can't afford, maybe if the banks kept the salaries in the country the people they were lending the money to would be able to pay to them back?
If you're an employee and you bust your ass day to day and make sure that your salary and customers are taken care of, there's nothing stating that the employer isn't going to lay you off and get someone for half your pay to service the accounts..
If you're an Employer right now, you have the option of paying someone who might be more qualified less money cause the job market is flooded.
You saw this alot in the IT field, they'd hire an experianced Programmer to start a program and have him contracted to service it as well. But as soon as the program was done, they'd fire him and hire a collage grade for 1/3 rd of the pay.
As far as the debt people can't afford, maybe if the banks kept the salaries in the country the people they were lending the money to would be able to pay to them back?
Lowing, what are you doing posting this letter? Shouldn't you be at work? You should obey your masters without question. Now go!!!
My comment to the OP:
Many employees forget that it is a contract: you agree to be employed under the terms and conditions of the employer to get paid. The employee doesn't have to worry about what the employer's commitment is. However, the employee should be sensitive to the employer's commitment level, just as the employer should be sensitive to the employee's commitment level. And of course, the government gets involved in terms of the maximum and minimum levels of certain aspects of the workplace.
My biggest fault I see is sometimes employees believe in entitlement on something beyond the employee's contract. I have the same point of view regarding the employer's view on said contract. If people saw their employment as a contract - agree to do certain functions for a paycheck - then we'd avoid the "Jesus on the cross" syndrome from both the employer and the employee side as mentioned in the OP.
Many employees forget that it is a contract: you agree to be employed under the terms and conditions of the employer to get paid. The employee doesn't have to worry about what the employer's commitment is. However, the employee should be sensitive to the employer's commitment level, just as the employer should be sensitive to the employee's commitment level. And of course, the government gets involved in terms of the maximum and minimum levels of certain aspects of the workplace.
My biggest fault I see is sometimes employees believe in entitlement on something beyond the employee's contract. I have the same point of view regarding the employer's view on said contract. If people saw their employment as a contract - agree to do certain functions for a paycheck - then we'd avoid the "Jesus on the cross" syndrome from both the employer and the employee side as mentioned in the OP.
I don't think so.OP email wrote:
The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country
Here's a little ditty that will be popular in 2012:
And we All lost our jobs
...because our employers' lines of credit dried up
...because the banks' reserves dried up
...because the money pumped in by the treasury dried up
...because the nation couldn't afford more
...because the treasury pumped the nation's wealth into the banks
...and the nation couldn't afford more
...and the money pumped in by the treasury dried up
...and the banks' reserves dried up
...and our employers' lines of credit dried up
Because we All lost our jobs.
and a hit from 2014:
999999 dollars for a beer at the mall,
999999 dollars for beer
Buy one beer and pass it around,
1000000 dollars for a beer at the mall
The problem is that you are using poor and unemployed interchangeably. Poor /= unemployedlowing wrote:
I love it, everyone wants to GIVE the money to poor, and no one mentions EARNING a damn thing. You do realize that there are people WORKING for all of this money of theirs you just want to GIVE away to to those that have not earned it right? God I hate liberals.
I would like to see how you feel and what you will say after building a successful business... say in 5 years or so... I bet you will have a whole different perspective...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
As someone who is in the process of starting up in business, I say it's total and utter bollox.lowing wrote:
Why? Even if it was not written to a group of employees, its contents make sense and does apply to small business owners and company buildersVaregg wrote:
I adressed the OP on the previous page but here is a resume: The letter is fake aka hardly worth discussing.
Can you not argue on the fact that it CAN be true?
If the government wants to give me (the business) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy company assets - forever locking that money up.
But, as some who is poor, I can also say it's total and utter bollox.
If the government wants to give me (the poor person) money, fine, but what am I going to do with it?
Buy food - realising that money into the economy.
Money needs to move for it to have power. Static money (assets) becomes increasingly worthless.
Love is the answer
The letter in the OP is a generalization... it does however highlight the perspective of a business owner who provides jobs for his employees...
The Owner by spending a great deal of time and effort building his business over the years... is merely stating to his employees...
I'm sorry folks
but with all the taxes and BS the govt has put me through... to in a sense penalize me for creating this business and providing you all with jobs and income... I the business owner have prepared for this day and can walk away... You the employee are on your own now... and if an employee
feels like they aren't appreciated... They can start there own business and do what it takes to become as successful as they want... and a lot of people do... but if the govt decides to redistribute the money from the business owner to the poor people... the business owner has no incentive to grow his business... so the business owner(s) decide to back off on their businesses and not hire or expand... and the poor guy who is looking for a job... is shit out of luck... then we all sit at home and wait for a check from the govt... no thanks...
The Owner by spending a great deal of time and effort building his business over the years... is merely stating to his employees...
I'm sorry folks
but with all the taxes and BS the govt has put me through... to in a sense penalize me for creating this business and providing you all with jobs and income... I the business owner have prepared for this day and can walk away... You the employee are on your own now... and if an employee
feels like they aren't appreciated... They can start there own business and do what it takes to become as successful as they want... and a lot of people do... but if the govt decides to redistribute the money from the business owner to the poor people... the business owner has no incentive to grow his business... so the business owner(s) decide to back off on their businesses and not hire or expand... and the poor guy who is looking for a job... is shit out of luck... then we all sit at home and wait for a check from the govt... no thanks...
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-01-20 12:54:25)
Love is the answer
Yes he does. The incentive is an increased customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
but if the govt decides to redistribute the money from the business owner to the poor people... the business owner has no incentive to grow his business...
This is Business Economics 101, as you guys call it.
Well I haven't read through all four pages of replies but when I get home from work I will post my own made-up garbage chain mail of my own creation full of urban myths, hyperbole and falsehoods. Or maybe just offer a simple response for a simple man as to why the OP is flawed. Then I will wait for lowing to tell me what I think and why it is wrong.
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2009-01-20 16:29:19)
"customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes he does. The incentive is an increased customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
but if the govt decides to redistribute the money from the business owner to the poor people... the business owner has no incentive to grow his business...
This is Business Economics 101, as you guys call it.
Customer base lost their jobs because the govt taxed business owners.... had to cut back... layoff and not hire any new employees...
You as a new business owner can do more for your community by growing an unrestricted business that pays a fair amount of tax and employs people... rather than a business that is saddled with excessive taxes... that will be given to poor folks through inefficient programs and welfare...
I understand being poor sucks for people... because i have been... relatively speaking...
but as i work harder and harder... I want to know that if i am willing to keep working and build a business... it will be worth it... otherwise... I will buy a PS3 and stay home and wait for my check...
Love is the answer
Maybe you can find a chain mail that has the point of view of ...The poor person that makes the economy grow and fixes all the problems... can't wait...lolKEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Well I haven't read through all four pages of replies but when I get home from work I will post my own made-up garbage chain mail of my own creation full of urban myths, hyperbole and falsehoods. Or maybe just offer a simple response for a simple man as to why the OP is flawed. Then I will wait for lowing to tell me what I think and why it is wrong.
Love is the answer
Every Presidential election year, candidates roll out tax plans aimed at wooing voters. This year, one of the debates is whether the Bush tax cuts should be made permanent.
The 2003 tax cuts simplified income tax brackets and slightly lowered rates. Consequently, the income tax’s penalty on work, investment, and innovation was reduced. Eliminating these cuts would be poor economic policy, poor tax policy, and poor social policy.
The long-term capital gains tax rate, now 15%—which will revert to 20% in 2011 if the tax cuts are not made permanent—makes us competitive internationally. This increase would raise the tax on investment gains by a third, increasing the tax from about the world average to one of the world’s highest. This is hardly a formula for domestic investment in job growth.
But these tax cuts don’t just help investors. Families would also see their taxes increase. Half of current child tax credits would disappear, dropping from $1,000 per child to $500. Grandparents could pass on less to their grandchildren, too, because death taxes would also rise.
The federal deficit is certainly a problem, but the culprit is federal spending, not tax rates. Spending is growing twice as fast as the government’s bank account, and twice as fast as it needs to provide services for our growing population. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays increased at an average annual rate of 3.6%, three times the rate of population growth. And contrary to what some argue, tax revenues did not dry up but rather increased over that period at an average annual rate of 1.4%. The problem isn’t too little revenue but too much spending.
Congress rarely practices spending restraint for the sake of reducing the national debt. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what we need.
The 2003 tax cuts simplified income tax brackets and slightly lowered rates. Consequently, the income tax’s penalty on work, investment, and innovation was reduced. Eliminating these cuts would be poor economic policy, poor tax policy, and poor social policy.
The long-term capital gains tax rate, now 15%—which will revert to 20% in 2011 if the tax cuts are not made permanent—makes us competitive internationally. This increase would raise the tax on investment gains by a third, increasing the tax from about the world average to one of the world’s highest. This is hardly a formula for domestic investment in job growth.
But these tax cuts don’t just help investors. Families would also see their taxes increase. Half of current child tax credits would disappear, dropping from $1,000 per child to $500. Grandparents could pass on less to their grandchildren, too, because death taxes would also rise.
The federal deficit is certainly a problem, but the culprit is federal spending, not tax rates. Spending is growing twice as fast as the government’s bank account, and twice as fast as it needs to provide services for our growing population. From 2001 to 2008, federal outlays increased at an average annual rate of 3.6%, three times the rate of population growth. And contrary to what some argue, tax revenues did not dry up but rather increased over that period at an average annual rate of 1.4%. The problem isn’t too little revenue but too much spending.
Congress rarely practices spending restraint for the sake of reducing the national debt. Nevertheless, that’s exactly what we need.
Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-01-20 16:41:06)
Love is the answer
I checked to see if the OP story is real... and obviously its the internet so it might not be real...lol...
but
this is at the bottom of that letter to his employees...
http://www.rense.com/general84/letter.htm
Michael A. Crowley,
PE Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers 1
906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest, NC 27587
919.562.8860 x22
919.562.8872 Fax
but
this is at the bottom of that letter to his employees...
http://www.rense.com/general84/letter.htm
Michael A. Crowley,
PE Crowley, Crisp & Associates, Inc.
Professional Engineers 1
906 South Main Street, Suite 122
Wake Forest, NC 27587
919.562.8860 x22
919.562.8872 Fax
Love is the answer
No, the customer base increases, the company makes more profit, can afford to pay higher taxes, and doesn't need to lay-off anyone.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
"customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes he does. The incentive is an increased customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
but if the govt decides to redistribute the money from the business owner to the poor people... the business owner has no incentive to grow his business...
This is Business Economics 101, as you guys call it.
Customer base lost their jobs because the govt taxed business owners.... had to cut back... layoff and not hire any new employees...
I never got a job from a poor person.
good luck with your business... and i really mean that... maybe we can chat in 5 years after you have built your business up... and see if you have any changes in your thoughts on taxing businessess heavily... see how easy it is ...everytime you start to get ahead and some people in the govt decide what to do with your extra money you made... they know best on what to do with your money... they prove that over and over...Scorpion0x17 wrote:
No, the customer base increases, the company makes more profit, can afford to pay higher taxes, and doesn't need to lay-off anyone.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
"customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits."Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yes he does. The incentive is an increased customer base. An increased customer base=increased profits.
This is Business Economics 101, as you guys call it.
Customer base lost their jobs because the govt taxed business owners.... had to cut back... layoff and not hire any new employees...
Love is the answer
Lets make this nice and simple.
There is one business, a rudimentary government which just does transfer payments and a few employees.
This country has 10 people living there, 5 are employed in the one business, 5 are unemployed.
Scenario 1 (The Lowing approach):
The taxes from the Business go straight back to the business so it can 'grow'. Unfortunately because there are only 5 people who have an income, there are only 5 people buying anything so the company only needs 5 employees to cover the demand. But at least the owner is happy and can go on a nice overseas holiday. The 5 unemployed are never going to get a job no matter how hard they try. The business is never going to expand because there is no extra demand for their product.
Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.
There is one business, a rudimentary government which just does transfer payments and a few employees.
This country has 10 people living there, 5 are employed in the one business, 5 are unemployed.
Scenario 1 (The Lowing approach):
The taxes from the Business go straight back to the business so it can 'grow'. Unfortunately because there are only 5 people who have an income, there are only 5 people buying anything so the company only needs 5 employees to cover the demand. But at least the owner is happy and can go on a nice overseas holiday. The 5 unemployed are never going to get a job no matter how hard they try. The business is never going to expand because there is no extra demand for their product.
Scenario 2:
The money from the taxes goes to the 5 unemployed people. Now there are the 5 employed people with an income and 5 people with government support. Now the customers of this business has increased to 10. The demand has increased and now the business is making more sales and needs to expand to maintain enough supply. The owner is again happy because their business is more profitable and has expanded, but there are also 5 extra happy people now with jobs. The Government is also happy because it now has a larger business and more people with an income producing more tax income.