And thats not the banks fault also? Lending money to people they know can't afford to pay it back. Using accounts receivable as an asset to loan against?lowing wrote:
I apologize, you are correct........................I forgot to add cigarettes, no the current finacial problem occured when people signed for loans they could not afford.
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.Varegg wrote:
Way to misread a message lowinglowing wrote:
shhhhhhhh, you will blow it for them.Harmor wrote:
I never got a job from a poor person.
They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.
There simply are no words to express how much I hate fuckin liberals.
There is a difference between taxing a business and giving all the government money to the poor ... there is this thing called a balanced budget, it's quite interesting so you should read up on what it means because it's a vital part for any government to take care of all it's citizens and not just an elitist group of people ... if you find the middleground you have a winner ...
Until you figure it out you might as well just go kick a homeless guy in the nuts and laugh at him because you are such a better human being than he is ...
lollowing wrote:
give give give, yes I must GIVE my hard earned money away, heavens for fuckin' bid, if anyone EARNED their money.TheAussieReaper wrote:
So if they were given more money....lowing wrote:
I apologize, you are correct........................I forgot to add cigarettes, no the current finacial problem occured when people signed for loans they could not afford.
Notice how, as a liberal, earn is never in your vocabulary.
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?lowing wrote:
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.Varegg wrote:
Way to misread a message lowinglowing wrote:
shhhhhhhh, you will blow it for them.
They think it is the poor, the lazy, and the non-producers that drive an economy, which is why we are all supposed to bust our ass to support them. they call it economics 101 I guess.
There simply are no words to express how much I hate fuckin liberals.
There is a difference between taxing a business and giving all the government money to the poor ... there is this thing called a balanced budget, it's quite interesting so you should read up on what it means because it's a vital part for any government to take care of all it's citizens and not just an elitist group of people ... if you find the middleground you have a winner ...
Until you figure it out you might as well just go kick a homeless guy in the nuts and laugh at him because you are such a better human being than he is ...
I see, so a person who built wealth does not spend more than someone who did not?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?lowing wrote:
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.Varegg wrote:
Way to misread a message lowing
There is a difference between taxing a business and giving all the government money to the poor ... there is this thing called a balanced budget, it's quite interesting so you should read up on what it means because it's a vital part for any government to take care of all it's citizens and not just an elitist group of people ... if you find the middleground you have a winner ...
Until you figure it out you might as well just go kick a homeless guy in the nuts and laugh at him because you are such a better human being than he is ...
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
Sorry no time, why don't you just link me to the page that says an economy is driven by the poor, non-productive, and not the investors, workers, and builders.DonFck wrote:
OK lowing, I'm trying to make this as simple as possible by linking you to a piece of literature that hopefully clears up some of the dilemmas you are encountering on a daily basis to a degree that you must write about it on a gaming forum (end long sentence):
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3256 … c97dx1.jpg
Click
Hint: By purchasing the book you will contribute to the economy by creating sales revenue and employing people in the supply chain from the author to the publisher, and further via the binding of the book to the retailer and the delivery company that brings this fine paperback to your front door. Value added tax will go to the state, ensuring continuity in the infrastructure and social system that made the creation of this book possible. By reading the book, you are making your carbon footprint smaller by lessening the amount of google searches for nonsense that you can copypaste here.
No, really. It's time you started to figure this shit out before making any more silly arguments. Read the book. Hell, read a book.lowing wrote:
Sorry no time, why don't you just link me to the page that says an economy is driven by the poor, non-productive, and not the investors, workers, and builders.DonFck wrote:
OK lowing, I'm trying to make this as simple as possible by linking you to a piece of literature that hopefully clears up some of the dilemmas you are encountering on a daily basis to a degree that you must write about it on a gaming forum (end long sentence):
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/3256 … c97dx1.jpg
Click
Hint: By purchasing the book you will contribute to the economy by creating sales revenue and employing people in the supply chain from the author to the publisher, and further via the binding of the book to the retailer and the delivery company that brings this fine paperback to your front door. Value added tax will go to the state, ensuring continuity in the infrastructure and social system that made the creation of this book possible. By reading the book, you are making your carbon footprint smaller by lessening the amount of google searches for nonsense that you can copypaste here.
"There are no need for jobs."............ok there is no need to create jobs and put people to work....Are you Obama's economic advisor or something?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?lowing wrote:
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.Varegg wrote:
Way to misread a message lowing
There is a difference between taxing a business and giving all the government money to the poor ... there is this thing called a balanced budget, it's quite interesting so you should read up on what it means because it's a vital part for any government to take care of all it's citizens and not just an elitist group of people ... if you find the middleground you have a winner ...
Until you figure it out you might as well just go kick a homeless guy in the nuts and laugh at him because you are such a better human being than he is ...
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
You must have been the Bush one tbh ...lowing wrote:
"There are no need for jobs."............ok there is no need to create jobs and put people to work....Are you Obama's economic advisor or something?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?lowing wrote:
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
Lowing, I'll use a graph. Should be simple enough for you, I made it in paint.lowing wrote:
The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.
Do you care to put up a graph showing the taxes paid by the rich as compared to those paid by well, anyone?TheAussieReaper wrote:
Lowing, I'll use a graph. Should be simple enough for you, I made it in paint.lowing wrote:
The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.
Here:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v83/r … k/1-10.png
Do you really think the amount the rich spends comes anywhere close to what the middle and poor classes spend?
And further, they are rich because they don't spend money. If they spend all their money, they wouldn't be rich now would they? lol
Yes... thats exactly what I'm saying.lowing wrote:
I see, so a person who built wealth does not spend more than someone who did not?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?lowing wrote:
Sorry Varegg, I didn't mis-read shit. I CLEARLY read in a few posts that, in effect, it is better to give money away instead of providing jobs.
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
I guess yachts, planes, fancy cars, fancy homes,and all the jobs that are created to maintain them is not spending enough for you to stimulate an economy, giving money to the poor who did not earn it so they can buy beer and smokes is what needs to happen. Who circulates money in the economy more, those that have it or those that don't. YOu, as a liberal, want to take money from those that earn it and give it to those that do not so the poor can spend it? The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.
So investors, that invest in a company, which in turns GROWS a company, which in turn provided JOBS for a family to EARN money to spend thus providing a long term and more permanent solution, is not the way to go.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes... thats exactly what I'm saying.lowing wrote:
I see, so a person who built wealth does not spend more than someone who did not?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
I guess yachts, planes, fancy cars, fancy homes,and all the jobs that are created to maintain them is not spending enough for you to stimulate an economy, giving money to the poor who did not earn it so they can buy beer and smokes is what needs to happen. Who circulates money in the economy more, those that have it or those that don't. YOu, as a liberal, want to take money from those that earn it and give it to those that do not so the poor can spend it? The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.
http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seek … erspen.jpg
Services and non durable goods make up 60% of GDP compared to only 10% for the goods you listed.
The rich also invest in stocks, bonds and cash non of which contribute to the supply chain and removes cash flow from the economy.
Ehr really? ... since when did stocks alone help a company grow and stay healthy?lowing wrote:
So investors, that invest in a company, which in turns GROWS a company, which in turn provided JOBS for a family to EARN money to spend thus providing a long term and more permanent solution, is not the way to go.DrunkFace wrote:
Yes... thats exactly what I'm saying.lowing wrote:
I see, so a person who built wealth does not spend more than someone who did not?
I guess yachts, planes, fancy cars, fancy homes,and all the jobs that are created to maintain them is not spending enough for you to stimulate an economy, giving money to the poor who did not earn it so they can buy beer and smokes is what needs to happen. Who circulates money in the economy more, those that have it or those that don't. YOu, as a liberal, want to take money from those that earn it and give it to those that do not so the poor can spend it? The rich spends waaaaaaaayyyyyyy more money than the poor does.
http://seekingalpha.com/wp-content/seek … erspen.jpg
Services and non durable goods make up 60% of GDP compared to only 10% for the goods you listed.
The rich also invest in stocks, bonds and cash non of which contribute to the supply chain and removes cash flow from the economy.
Have those that work pay for those that don't and pretty much make it so they will never have to, this is your grand solution?
ANy chance you would consider that those that earn a living might wanna keep what they have earned for themselves and their own families? Oh wait I remember that is greed. I forgot my own sig.
Nope, I just choose to earn a living to get my spending money instead of stealing it from someone else and claim entitlement. That is just me though.Varegg wrote:
You must have been the Bush one tbh ...lowing wrote:
"There are no need for jobs."............ok there is no need to create jobs and put people to work....Are you Obama's economic advisor or something?DrunkFace wrote:
providing jobs to do what? sit around and look pretty?
PEOPLE ARE NOT BUYING SHIT!!!! There are no need for jobs.
The economy is Demand driven and at the moment there is low demand. To increase demand the government needs to redistribute the money to those who are going to spend it.
People wouldn't die. There would be charity and the rich would feed the poor.DonFck wrote:
lowing, do you seriously believe that 100% employment would a) be possible and b) be at all good for any economy?
If you lived in lowingland, where you can keep what you make, in a case of unemployment, you'd.. ..die. If at any point you will be unemployed IN THE REAL WORLD, you'll gladly take any money you can get before you end up as a rotting carcass who used to live in a cardboard box and tell stories of when he was wealthy (as heard by people passing by, referring to you as "the crazy street hobo").
If you don't know shit about this matter, I suggest you read up, learn, and then come back with some actual knowledge.
We've all already established that what you lack in empathy for others, you compensate in complete and utter ignorance.
OMG, you are American Dad.lowing wrote:
I do give him credit, I credit him as the spawn of Jimmy Carter, the father of the pussification of America and the liberal apologist, peace at any price movement.sergeriver wrote:
You are placing blame based on assumptions. Wrong. FFS give the guy some credit.lowing wrote:
I remember his campaign, I remember he is a liberal, thsat is why I said "IS GOING TO AFFECT" and not "what it has affected."
Yer right, I am stupid, I decided to earn a living instead of mooching one from someone elses efforts. I think in order for me to get ahead, I need to quit my job, and default on my mortage so I can take advantage of all of these neat programs that I will be ENTITLED to, once I force someone else to burden themselves with taking care of me.DonFck wrote:
lowing, do you seriously believe that 100% employment would a) be possible and b) be at all good for any economy?
If you lived in lowingland, where you can keep what you make, in a case of unemployment, you'd.. ..die. If at any point you will be unemployed IN THE REAL WORLD, you'll gladly take any money you can get before you end up as a rotting carcass who used to live in a cardboard box and tell stories of when he was wealthy (as heard by people passing by, referring to you as "the crazy street hobo").
If you don't know shit about this matter, I suggest you read up, learn, and then come back with some actual knowledge.
We've all already established that what you lack in empathy for others, you compensate in complete and utter ignorance.
You really think being on welfare is like going on some great big holiday?lowing wrote:
Yer right, I am stupid, I decided to earn a living instead of mooching one from someone elses efforts. I think in order for me to get ahead, I need to quit my job, and default on my mortage so I can take advantage of all of these neat programs that I will be ENTITLED to, once I force someone else to burden themselves with taking care of me.
I'm amazed ...lowing wrote:
Yer right, I am stupid, I decided to earn a living instead of mooching one from someone elses efforts. I think in order for me to get ahead, I need to quit my job, and default on my mortage so I can take advantage of all of these neat programs that I will be ENTITLED to, once I force someone else to burden themselves with taking care of me.DonFck wrote:
lowing, do you seriously believe that 100% employment would a) be possible and b) be at all good for any economy?
If you lived in lowingland, where you can keep what you make, in a case of unemployment, you'd.. ..die. If at any point you will be unemployed IN THE REAL WORLD, you'll gladly take any money you can get before you end up as a rotting carcass who used to live in a cardboard box and tell stories of when he was wealthy (as heard by people passing by, referring to you as "the crazy street hobo").
If you don't know shit about this matter, I suggest you read up, learn, and then come back with some actual knowledge.
We've all already established that what you lack in empathy for others, you compensate in complete and utter ignorance.
I don't thjink so, I would never raise a liberalsergeriver wrote:
OMG, you are American Dad.lowing wrote:
I do give him credit, I credit him as the spawn of Jimmy Carter, the father of the pussification of America and the liberal apologist, peace at any price movement.sergeriver wrote:
You are placing blame based on assumptions. Wrong. FFS give the guy some credit.
So you'd raise a misinformed conservative that actually thinks "trickle down" economics works?lowing wrote:
I don't thjink so, I would never raise a liberalsergeriver wrote:
OMG, you are American Dad.lowing wrote:
I do give him credit, I credit him as the spawn of Jimmy Carter, the father of the pussification of America and the liberal apologist, peace at any price movement.
Neh, I will settle for raise a person who takes responsibility for their action, their education, and their lives. carzy huh?Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
So you'd raise a misinformed conservative that actually thinks "trickle down" economics works?lowing wrote:
I don't thjink so, I would never raise a liberalsergeriver wrote:
OMG, you are American Dad.
