> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> >>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". Now as everyone knows, > >>> people losing their jobs lose their healthcare(eventually anyway). > >>> Are the the unemployed being used to leverage the passage of a > >>> healthcare reform? > >> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > What should they do to address unemployment?
> > Employment is a trailing indicator. It will turn around now that the > > economy is improving.
> > Jon
> Ok, how long have we been hearing that the "economy is improving"?? > Since June?
> And the UE numbers keep rising.
Even though the unemployment rate is much higher than anticipated (10.2% vs. 8%), even with the stimulus, the government had forecast an unemployment peak at this point. Without stimulus, they had anticipated a peak in Q2/Q3 2010:
> > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > >> On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > >>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". Now as everyone knows, > > >>> people losing their jobs lose their healthcare(eventually anyway). > > >>> Are the the unemployed being used to leverage the passage of a > > >>> healthcare reform? > > >> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > >> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > Employment is a trailing indicator. It will turn around now that the > > > economy is improving.
> > > Jon
> > Ok, how long have we been hearing that the "economy is improving"?? > > Since June?
> > And the UE numbers keep rising.
> Even though the unemployment rate is much higher than anticipated > (10.2% vs. 8%), even with the stimulus, the government had forecast an > unemployment peak at this point. Without stimulus, they had > anticipated a peak in Q2/Q3 2010:
> Tom Enright wrote: > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > Do not increase taxes. > > Do not increase spending. > > Do not increase the deficit. > > Do not increase regulation.
> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > regulation. Stuff like that.
The government can only create government jobs that the private sector ends up paying for.
> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > the @!#$ing roof.
> > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> Tom Enright wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >>> Do not increase taxes. > >>> Do not increase spending. > >>> Do not increase the deficit. > >>> Do not increase regulation. > >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > >> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > >> regulation. Stuff like that.
> >> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > >> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > >> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > >> the @!#$ing roof.
> >> Cheers.
> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> Shit, I guess my dad's career at General Dynamics wasn't > really in a private sector job!
So Bellomy Incorporated hires a 10 people, and just makes payroll every two weeks. Uncle Sam wants to have 50 more boomers for the fleet and bumps up Bellomy Incorporated taxes 10%. You taking out a perpetual loan to keep that 10th worker? People who buy your product are also hit with the tax, so don't expect them to sell them more of your stuff.
You are making the mistake that government creates things. It doesn't, it takes things and redistributes.
> On Nov 7, 12:25 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
> > > Tom Enright wrote: > > > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > > Do not increase taxes. > > > > Do not increase spending. > > > > Do not increase the deficit. > > > > Do not increase regulation.
> > > You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > > > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > > > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > > > regulation. Stuff like that.
> > > You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > > > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > > > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > > > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > > > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > > > the @!#$ing roof.
> > > Cheers.
> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> In that case, I'm guessing General Electric and other people getting > money from DHS aren't actually in the private sector.
think for a minute about where that money DHS gives away comes from.
> lein wrote: > > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> Tom Enright wrote: > >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >>> Do not increase taxes. > >>> Do not increase spending. > >>> Do not increase the deficit. > >>> Do not increase regulation. > >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > >> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > >> regulation. Stuff like that.
> >> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > >> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > >> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > >> the @!#$ing roof.
> >> Cheers.
> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> Of course it does.
Then why doesn't the government simply create more jobs tomorrow to reduce unemployment? It can't create a jobs without taking something (another job) away. When it does redistribute jobs, toss in a bloated bureaucracy (that also has to be funded) to play middleman.
> On Nov 6, 9:28 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> lein wrote, On 11/6/09 11:25 PM:
>>> On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >>>> Tom Enright wrote: >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >>>>> Do not increase taxes. >>>>> Do not increase spending. >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >>>>> Do not increase regulation. >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >>>> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context >>>> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with >>>> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things >>>> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really >>>> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through >>>> the @!#$ing roof. >>>> Cheers. >>> the government doesn't create private sector jobs. >> Shit, I guess my dad's career at General Dynamics wasn't >> really in a private sector job!
> So Bellomy Incorporated hires a 10 people, and just makes payroll > every two weeks. Uncle Sam wants to have 50 more boomers for the > fleet and bumps up Bellomy Incorporated taxes 10%. You taking out a > perpetual loan to keep that 10th worker? People who buy your product > are also hit with the tax, so don't expect them to sell them more of > your stuff.
So, you're saying that the public can't own or buy anything like corporations do? What a curious argument.
> On Nov 7, 4:40 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:07 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > > > > On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > > > >> On Nov 6, 6:10 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > > >>> And yet all we see or hear is "health care". Now as everyone knows, > > > >>> people losing their jobs lose their healthcare(eventually anyway). > > > >>> Are the the unemployed being used to leverage the passage of a > > > >>> healthcare reform? > > > >> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > > >> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > > What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > > Employment is a trailing indicator. It will turn around now that the > > > > economy is improving.
> > > > Jon
> > > Ok, how long have we been hearing that the "economy is improving"?? > > > Since June?
> > > And the UE numbers keep rising.
> > Even though the unemployment rate is much higher than anticipated > > (10.2% vs. 8%), even with the stimulus, the government had forecast an > > unemployment peak at this point. Without stimulus, they had > > anticipated a peak in Q2/Q3 2010:
> On Nov 7, 4:20 am, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote: >> lein wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> >> Tom Enright wrote: >> >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >> >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >> >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >> >>> Do not increase taxes. >> >>> Do not increase spending. >> >>> Do not increase the deficit. >> >>> Do not increase regulation. >> >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had >> >> rampan > t >> >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's >> >> way to create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, >> >> increasin > g >> >> regulation. Stuff like that.
>> >> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the >> >> context of the production of goods and services, is getting more >> >> done/made wit > h >> >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought >> >> thi > ngs >> >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were >> >> really and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate >> >> would go throu > gh >> >> the @!#$ing roof.
>> >> Cheers.
>> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
>> Of course it does.
> Then why doesn't the government simply create more jobs tomorrow to > reduce unemployment?
Because people don't want to pay for it.
> It can't create a jobs without taking something > (another job) away.
It can't create a job without taking something away - but that something isn't necessarily a job.
> When it does redistribute jobs, toss in a > bloated bureaucracy (that also has to be funded) to play middleman.
> On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> >>>> Tom Enright wrote: >> >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> >> >>>>> wrote >: >> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >> >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >> >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >> >>>>> Do not increase taxes. >> >>>>> Do not increase spending. >> >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >> >>>>> Do not increase regulation. >> >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had >> >>>> ramp > ant >> >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's >> >>>> way > to >> >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, >> >>>> increas > ing >> >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >> >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does >> >>> help. Governments who have shut down their spending during the >> >>> beginning of a downturn generally have made the problem worse. >> >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is >> >>> take money out of the consumer's hands. >> >>> Jon >> >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit 'em >> >> har > d?
>> > Why? They don't spend money?
>> > Jon
>> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for >> public school classes. They pay for this with by increasing taxation >> on the top 1% of earners.
> always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly > believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor?
No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also believe TR was right when he said:
"The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government"
> > On Nov 6, 9:28 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: > >> lein wrote, On 11/6/09 11:25 PM:
> >>> On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >>>> Tom Enright wrote: > >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >>>>> Do not increase taxes. > >>>>> Do not increase spending. > >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. > >>>>> Do not increase regulation. > >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. > >>>> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > >>>> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > >>>> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > >>>> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > >>>> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > >>>> the @!#$ing roof. > >>>> Cheers. > >>> the government doesn't create private sector jobs. > >> Shit, I guess my dad's career at General Dynamics wasn't > >> really in a private sector job!
> > So Bellomy Incorporated hires a 10 people, and just makes payroll > > every two weeks. Uncle Sam wants to have 50 more boomers for the > > fleet and bumps up Bellomy Incorporated taxes 10%. You taking out a > > perpetual loan to keep that 10th worker? People who buy your product > > are also hit with the tax, so don't expect them to sell them more of > > your stuff.
> So, you're saying that the public can't own or buy > anything like corporations do? What a curious argument.
No, I want to know how you plan to meet payroll and hire more people when you have less money.
> > On Nov 7, 4:20 am, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote: > >> lein wrote: > >> > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> >> Tom Enright wrote: > >> >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >> >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >> >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >> >>> Do not increase taxes. > >> >>> Do not increase spending. > >> >>> Do not increase the deficit. > >> >>> Do not increase regulation. > >> >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had > >> >> rampan > > t > >> >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's > >> >> way to create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, > >> >> increasin > > g > >> >> regulation. Stuff like that.
> >> >> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the > >> >> context of the production of goods and services, is getting more > >> >> done/made wit > > h > >> >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought > >> >> thi > > ngs > >> >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were > >> >> really and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate > >> >> would go throu > > gh > >> >> the @!#$ing roof.
> >> >> Cheers.
> >> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> >> Of course it does.
> > Then why doesn't the government simply create more jobs tomorrow to > > reduce unemployment?
> Because people don't want to pay for it.
> > It can't create a jobs without taking something > > (another job) away.
> It can't create a job without taking something away - but that something > isn't necessarily a job.
it could simply be the means to create a job.
> > When it does redistribute jobs, toss in a > > bloated bureaucracy (that also has to be funded) to play middleman.
> Which are jobs.
Yes, but what do they sell and produce to generate wealth?
> On Nov 7, 4:37 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 12:25 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
> > > > Tom Enright wrote: > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > > > > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > > > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > > >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > > > Do not increase taxes. > > > > > Do not increase spending. > > > > > Do not increase the deficit. > > > > > Do not increase regulation.
> > > > You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > > > > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > > > > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > > > > regulation. Stuff like that.
> > > > You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > > > > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > > > > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > > > > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > > > > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > > > > the @!#$ing roof.
> > > > Cheers.
> > > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> > In that case, I'm guessing General Electric and other people getting > > money from DHS aren't actually in the private sector.
> think for a minute about where that money DHS gives away comes from.
I know where that money comes from, but are we going to redefine every private sector company that takes federal funds as a public sector company? In a sense, we probably should, but a whole lot of people who claim to be working for private sector companies (apparently including many in this NG who work for defense contractors) might be a bit surprised.
> On Nov 9, 8:18 am, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote >> innews:45a841f7-d105-4004-a984-185 > c036de...@k13g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 7, 4:20 am, TimV <nos...@nospam.org> wrote: >> >> lein wrote: >> >> > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> Tom Enright wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >> >> >>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >> >> >>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >> >> >>> Do not increase taxes. >> >> >>> Do not increase spending. >> >> >>> Do not increase the deficit. >> >> >>> Do not increase regulation. >> >> >> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had >> >> >> rampan >> > t >> >> >> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's >> >> >> way to create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, >> >> >> taxing, increasin >> > g >> >> >> regulation. Stuff like that.
>> >> >> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the >> >> >> context of the production of goods and services, is getting >> >> >> more done/made wit >> > h >> >> >> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have >> >> >> thought thi >> > ngs >> >> >> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were >> >> >> really and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate >> >> >> would go throu >> > gh >> >> >> the @!#$ing roof.
>> >> >> Cheers.
>> >> > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
>> >> Of course it does.
>> > Then why doesn't the government simply create more jobs tomorrow to >> > reduce unemployment?
>> Because people don't want to pay for it.
>> > It can't create a jobs without taking something >> > (another job) away.
>> It can't create a job without taking something away - but that >> something isn't necessarily a job.
> it could simply be the means to create a job.
Could be...
Or it could be just a few bucks that without being aggregated would have created nothing.
It COULD be lots of things, depending on the funding structure.
> On Nov 7, 11:36 am, lein <jan.leine.we...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 4:37 am, JGibson <james.m.gib...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 7, 12:25 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote:
> > > > > Tom Enright wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: > > > > > >> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > > > > > >>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits.
> > > > > >> What should they do to address unemployment?
> > > > > > Do not increase taxes. > > > > > > Do not increase spending. > > > > > > Do not increase the deficit. > > > > > > Do not increase regulation.
> > > > > You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant > > > > > unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to > > > > > create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing > > > > > regulation. Stuff like that.
> > > > > You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context > > > > > of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with > > > > > less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things > > > > > through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really > > > > > and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through > > > > > the @!#$ing roof.
> > > > > Cheers.
> > > > the government doesn't create private sector jobs.
> > > In that case, I'm guessing General Electric and other people getting > > > money from DHS aren't actually in the private sector.
> > think for a minute about where that money DHS gives away comes from.
> I know where that money comes from, but are we going to redefine every > private sector company that takes federal funds as a public sector > company? In a sense, we probably should, but a whole lot of people > who claim to be working for private sector companies (apparently > including many in this NG who work for defense contractors) might be a > bit surprised.
Actually, the way defense contract should work is that the Government has a need and sends out a request for proposal/quotation. Any business is then free to submit proposals, with their bids for the job. These bids often include how they plan to fulfill the requirements given their staff and resources. The government picks a winner and a battleship is built.
In the defense world, it shouldn't be a the government redefining companies, rather, the government simply ensures the terms and conditions of the contracts are followed. Of course in reality this doesn't always work well since contractors are allowed to monopolize and donate to politicians. Government is inconsistent with oversight. Despite its flaws, would it better if the government built its own "government option" company that would compete with the private sector for bids?
This is a case where government does create jobs, but it still comes at a cost, taxing the economy. But defense is clearly a defined function of the Federal government and the only argument is how little or how much.
There is no Constitutional power granted to provide health care, but they can oversee its operations. Make sure all contracts between companies and individuals are followed, are written in understandable language, limit one company from dominating a market, etc. If the government can control health care as it is being discussed, then name one thing will not be able to control?
> > On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >> > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >> >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> >>>> Tom Enright wrote: > >> >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> > >> >>>>> wrote > >: > >> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >> >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >> >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >> >>>>> Do not increase taxes. > >> >>>>> Do not increase spending. > >> >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. > >> >>>>> Do not increase regulation. > >> >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had > >> >>>> ramp > > ant > >> >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's > >> >>>> way > > to > >> >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, > >> >>>> increas > > ing > >> >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. > >> >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does > >> >>> help. Governments who have shut down their spending during the > >> >>> beginning of a downturn generally have made the problem worse. > >> >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is > >> >>> take money out of the consumer's hands. > >> >>> Jon > >> >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit 'em > >> >> har > > d?
> >> > Why? They don't spend money?
> >> > Jon
> >> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for > >> public school classes. They pay for this with by increasing taxation > >> on the top 1% of earners.
> > always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly > > believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor?
> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that > cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also > believe TR was right when he said:
> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because > he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government"
As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the taxation levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's a bit disengenous of you to use that quote.
-Tom Enright
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. - George Orwell
> On Nov 9, 11:19 am, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote >> innews:a37d0cb3-88d7-456a-93ba-af > cc5b27a...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> >> > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> Tom Enright wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" >> >> >>>>> <jens...@charter.net> wrote >> >: >> >> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to >> >> >>>>>>> address unemployment, other than extend unemployment >> >> >>>>>>> benefits. >> >> >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >> >> >>>>> Do not increase taxes. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase spending. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase regulation. >> >> >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had >> >> >>>> ramp >> > ant >> >> >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of >> >> >>>> it's way >> > to >> >> >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, >> >> >>>> increas >> > ing >> >> >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >> >> >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does >> >> >>> help. Governments who have shut down their spending during the >> >> >>> beginning of a downturn generally have made the problem worse. >> >> >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is >> >> >>> take money out of the consumer's hands. >> >> >>> Jon >> >> >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit >> >> >> 'em har >> > d?
>> >> > Why? They don't spend money?
>> >> > Jon
>> >> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for >> >> public school classes. They pay for this with by increasing >> >> taxatio > n >> >> on the top 1% of earners.
>> > always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly >> > believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor?
>> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that >> cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also >> believe TR was right when he said:
>> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, >> because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of >> government"
> As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the taxation > levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's a bit > disengenous of you to use that quote.
No - you'd have no problems going back to the taxation levels that were in effect when Roosevelt was in office - you'd strenusouly object to going back to the taxation levels Teddy was *talking* about.
"The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and burden of taxation. *The Government has the absolute right to decide as to the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for the imposition of a tax.*"
"The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
"We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:e2858e10-4176-4d89-99c1-39167bbabf95@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com: > >> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that > >> cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also > >> believe TR was right when he said:
> >> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, > >> because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of > >> government"
> > As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the taxation > > levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's a bit > > disengenous of you to use that quote. > No - you'd have no problems going back to the taxation levels that were in > effect when Roosevelt was in office - you'd strenusouly object to going > back to the taxation levels Teddy was *talking* about.
> "The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of taxation, and > far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the country > bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding increase and > burden of taxation. *The Government has the absolute right to decide as to > the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from another, > and this point in the devolution of property is especially appropriate for > the imposition of a tax.*"
> "The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his > profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly > maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of > the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may > require it."
> "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained and > well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained without > doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be gained only so > long as the gaining represents benefit to the community."
I'd prefer the levels of taxation under either ot Teddy's presidencies, would you?
> On Nov 9, 3:59 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:e2858e10-4176-4d89-99c1 > -39167bbab...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> >> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those >> >> that cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. >> >> I also believe TR was right when he said:
>> >> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, >> >> because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of >> >> government"
>> > As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the taxation >> > levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's a bit >> > disengenous of you to use that quote.
>> No - you'd have no problems going back to the taxation levels that >> were i > n >> effect when Roosevelt was in office - you'd strenusouly object to >> going back to the taxation levels Teddy was *talking* about.
>> "The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of >> taxation, a > nd >> far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the >> country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding >> increase and burden of taxation. *The Government has the absolute >> right to decide as t > o >> the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from >> another > , >> and this point in the devolution of property is especially >> appropriate fo > r >> the imposition of a tax.*"
>> "The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his >> profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who >> rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the >> general right > of >> the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public >> welfare m > ay >> require it."
>> "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained >> and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained >> without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be >> gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the >> community."
> I'd prefer the levels of taxation under either ot Teddy's > presidencies, would you?
No - like I've said twice (and this is the third time) I'd prefer the taxation levels that TR wanted, not the ones that were in effect during his presidencies.
Plus I think you'd be squawking pretty loud about going back to the tariff levels of TR's presidency.
> > On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >> > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: > >> >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: > >> >>>> Tom Enright wrote: > >> >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> > >> >>>>> wrote > >: > >> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address > >> >>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. > >> >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? > >> >>>>> Do not increase taxes. > >> >>>>> Do not increase spending. > >> >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. > >> >>>>> Do not increase regulation. > >> >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had > >> >>>> ramp > > ant > >> >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's > >> >>>> way > > to > >> >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, > >> >>>> increas > > ing > >> >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. > >> >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does > >> >>> help. Governments who have shut down their spending during the > >> >>> beginning of a downturn generally have made the problem worse. > >> >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is > >> >>> take money out of the consumer's hands. > >> >>> Jon > >> >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit 'em > >> >> har > > d?
> >> > Why? They don't spend money?
> >> > Jon
> >> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for > >> public school classes. They pay for this with by increasing taxation > >> on the top 1% of earners.
> > always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly > > believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor?
> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that > cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also > believe TR was right when he said:
> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, because > he derives special advantages from the mere existence of government"
And I believe Lincoln was right when he said:
"I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else."
And William J. H. Boetcker:
* You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men. * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money. * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men's initiative and independence. * And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.
> > On Nov 9, 3:59 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: > >> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote > >> innews:e2858e10-4176-4d89-99c1 > > -39167bbab...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
> >> >> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those > >> >> that cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. > >> >> I also believe TR was right when he said:
> >> >> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, > >> >> because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of > >> >> government"
> >> > As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the taxation > >> > levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's a bit > >> > disengenous of you to use that quote.
> >> No - you'd have no problems going back to the taxation levels that > >> were i > > n > >> effect when Roosevelt was in office - you'd strenusouly object to > >> going back to the taxation levels Teddy was *talking* about.
> >> "The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of > >> taxation, a > > nd > >> far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the > >> country bear in proportion to their increase in size a corresponding > >> increase and burden of taxation. *The Government has the absolute > >> right to decide as t > > o > >> the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from > >> another > > , > >> and this point in the devolution of property is especially > >> appropriate fo > > r > >> the imposition of a tax.*"
> >> "The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his > >> profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who > >> rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the > >> general right > > of > >> the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public > >> welfare m > > ay > >> require it."
> >> "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably obtained > >> and well used. It is not even enough that it should have been gained > >> without doing damage to the community. We should permit it to be > >> gained only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the > >> community."
> > I'd prefer the levels of taxation under either ot Teddy's > > presidencies, would you? > No - like I've said twice (and this is the third time) I'd prefer the > taxation levels that TR wanted, not the ones that were in effect during > his presidencies.
What were the taxations TR wanted? My guess is they are still far, far, far lower than they are now.
When comes down to it, you know, as well as I, TR would be shocked and outraged by the high levels of taxation in this country.
> Plus I think you'd be squawking pretty loud about going back to the > tariff levels of TR's presidency.
I don't like tariffs.
-Tom Enright
"We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves." -Teddy Roosevelt
> On Nov 9, 8:19 am, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote >> innews:a37d0cb3-88d7-456a-93ba-af > cc5b27a...@a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 6, 9:36 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> >> > On Nov 6, 10:43 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote: >> >> >>> On Nov 6, 9:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> Tom Enright wrote: >> >> >>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" >> >> >>>>> <jens...@charter.net> wrote >> >: >> >> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to >> >> >>>>>>> address unemployment, other than extend unemployment >> >> >>>>>>> benefits. >> >> >>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >> >> >>>>> Do not increase taxes. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase spending. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >> >> >>>>> Do not increase regulation. >> >> >>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had >> >> >>>> ramp >> > ant >> >> >>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of >> >> >>>> it's way >> > to >> >> >>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, >> >> >>>> increas >> > ing >> >> >>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >> >> >>> Increased government spending, if done quickly and well, does >> >> >>> help. Governments who have shut down their spending during the >> >> >>> beginning of a downturn generally have made the problem worse. >> >> >>> But increasing taxation is 100 times worse....all that does is >> >> >>> take money out of the consumer's hands. >> >> >>> Jon >> >> >> What if you restrict your tax increases to the top 1%, but hit >> >> >> 'em har >> > d?
>> >> > Why? They don't spend money?
>> >> > Jon
>> >> Say the government mandates a max class size of 20 students for >> >> public school classes. They pay for this with by increasing >> >> taxatio > n >> >> on the top 1% of earners.
>> > always about class envy with you guys, isn't it. Do you honestly >> > believe you make a poor man rich by making a rich man poor?
>> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of those that >> cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class mobility. I also >> believe TR was right when he said:
>> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the State, >> because he derives special advantages from the mere existence of >> government"
> And I believe Lincoln was right when he said:
> "I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would > do more harm than good. So while we do not propose any war upon > capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get > rich with everybody else."
Nothing about progressive taxation or a very strong inheritance tax prevents a man from getting rich.
> On Nov 9, 4:23 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote >> innews:d9d0d34c-5c63-4e18-852b > -c78eabb74...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
>> > On Nov 9, 3:59 pm, The BorgMan <m...@me.net> wrote: >> >> Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote >> >> innews:e2858e10-4176-4d89-99c1 >> > -39167bbab...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:
>> >> >> No - I believe we make our society great by taking care of >> >> >> those that cannot take care of themselves, and fostering class >> >> >> mobility. I also believe TR was right when he said:
>> >> >> "The man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the >> >> >> State, because he derives special advantages from the mere >> >> >> existence of government"
>> >> > As I wrote before, I'd have no problem going back to the >> >> > taxation levels Teddy was talking about. You wouldn't, so it's >> >> > a bit disengenous of you to use that quote.
>> >> No - you'd have no problems going back to the taxation levels that >> >> were i >> > n >> >> effect when Roosevelt was in office - you'd strenusouly object to >> >> going back to the taxation levels Teddy was *talking* about.
>> >> "The inheritance tax, however, is both a far better method of >> >> taxation, a >> > nd >> >> far more important for the purpose of having the fortunes of the >> >> country bear in proportion to their increase in size a >> >> corresponding increase and burden of taxation. *The Government has >> >> the absolute right to decide as t >> > o >> >> the terms upon which a man shall receive a bequest or devise from >> >> another >> > , >> >> and this point in the devolution of property is especially >> >> appropriate fo >> > r >> >> the imposition of a tax.*"
>> >> "The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to >> >> his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who >> >> rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the >> >> general right >> > of >> >> the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public >> >> welfare m >> > ay >> >> require it."
>> >> "We grudge no man a fortune in civil life if it is honorably >> >> obtained and well used. It is not even enough that it should have >> >> been gained without doing damage to the community. We should >> >> permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining represents >> >> benefit to the community."
>> > I'd prefer the levels of taxation under either ot Teddy's >> > presidencies, would you?
>> No - like I've said twice (and this is the third time) I'd prefer the >> taxation levels that TR wanted, not the ones that were in effect >> during his presidencies.
> What were the taxations TR wanted? My guess is they are still far, > far, far lower than they are now.
On income - possibly right, on inheritance - doubtful.
> When comes down to it, you know, as well as I, TR would be shocked and > outraged by the high levels of taxation in this country.
I doubt it.
"every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."
>> Plus I think you'd be squawking pretty loud about going back to the >> tariff levels of TR's presidency.
> On Nov 7, 9:08 am, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >> lein wrote, On 11/7/09 10:34 AM:
>>> On Nov 6, 9:28 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote: >>>> lein wrote, On 11/6/09 11:25 PM: >>>>> On Nov 6, 7:32 am, "Kyle T. Jones" <KBf...@realdomain.net> wrote: >>>>>> Tom Enright wrote: >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 10:04 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 8:51 am, lein <boomer_the_...@my-deja.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Well, what has this administration actually done to address >>>>>>>>> unemployment, other than extend unemployment benefits. >>>>>>>> What should they do to address unemployment? >>>>>>> Do not increase taxes. >>>>>>> Do not increase spending. >>>>>>> Do not increase the deficit. >>>>>>> Do not increase regulation. >>>>>> You're @#$%ing crazy. One of the only reasons we haven't had rampant >>>>>> unemployment earlier is because the government goes out of it's way to >>>>>> create jobs. Which requires, you know - spending, taxing, increasing >>>>>> regulation. Stuff like that. >>>>>> You do realize one definition of efficiency, especially in the context >>>>>> of the production of goods and services, is getting more done/made with >>>>>> less people, right? I wonder if some of you GOPers have thought things >>>>>> through - talk about your unintended consequences - if we were really >>>>>> and truly to maximize efficiency, the unemployment rate would go through >>>>>> the @!#$ing roof. >>>>>> Cheers. >>>>> the government doesn't create private sector jobs. >>>> Shit, I guess my dad's career at General Dynamics wasn't >>>> really in a private sector job! >>> So Bellomy Incorporated hires a 10 people, and just makes payroll >>> every two weeks. Uncle Sam wants to have 50 more boomers for the >>> fleet and bumps up Bellomy Incorporated taxes 10%. You taking out a >>> perpetual loan to keep that 10th worker? People who buy your product >>> are also hit with the tax, so don't expect them to sell them more of >>> your stuff. >> So, you're saying that the public can't own or buy >> anything like corporations do? What a curious argument.
> No, I want to know how you plan to meet payroll and hire more people > when you have less money.
With the additional revenue I make when people with new jobs are able to spend money on my product or service.
|
