posted December 19, 2012 05:25 PM            

Since then you've continued trying making points about the initiator that endeavors to meet demand. That isn't an adequate counterpoint to consumer demand creating jobs. If the initiator creates jobs for a product that there's no demand for, the jobs don't last regardless of the initiator's intention. Kat got it. Juni got it. I've got it. Surely, you must have it yourself, but you keep trying to resist. It's not a difference of opinion. It's something we're all plenty old enough to have observed for ourselves...

posted December 19, 2012 06:16 PM            

for the most part, job creation begins at a small level. so to say the big guys have to have all their money free and clear is to misunderstand that they will eventually takeover YOUR business too if it looks profitable enough, and they have the buying power to leverage you out.

how many people have lost their businesses to, say, walmart and their brethren the big pharmacy/novelty stores? i know that since i moved here in 95 all but ONE small local drugstore has been swallowed by CVS or walgreens or rite aid...

and the fact remains that those companies you opened the thread with have largely backtracked in the face of CONSUMER sentiment.

posted December 19, 2012 08:18 PM            

but thank you for pointing out, inadvertently, that government is NOT a for-profit business, nor should it be. this is where the conservatives really lose the thread...when they suggest it should be run just like any other business.

posted December 20, 2012 12:47 AM            

i am not sure why you would be worried about some extra taxes on the rich, since you have yourself pointed out that if all the money were redistributed tomorrow it would pretty soon end up in the hands of the same people or mostly, anyway.

if you think that my objection to allowing a few rich men run the country according to THEIR specifications means i am a socialist then you need to hit the books. i have lived in places you call socialist and i find your definitions more than simplistic...

and so do some of the wealthiest businesspeople in the world live in such countries. they are not socialists either!

posted December 20, 2012 12:55 AM            

funny, there isn't even a whiff of this online...have you been having dinner with the president? or rush? anyone can say things, but why would anyone believe them?

posted December 20, 2012 11:26 AM            

and if by throwing the under 250K crowd under the bus you mean he is supposedly negotiating the cost of living increase on social security as part of the deal, that is hardly throwing the people you mention under the bus.

but i have learned, apparently unlike your goodself, that it is not worth getting in a tizzy about the rumours that come out of washington and a media hellbent on story and drama whether they have actual facts or not.

do't forget that obama cannot give or take one single cent, as reagan pointed out. congress spends the money, and that includes a lot of republicans on their way out, many of whom have retracted their notax norquist pledge, and democrats who know why they will have more buddies in the house and senate in january.
http://news.yahoo.com/whats-table-now-fiscal-cliff-talks-184340716--finance.html

according to this the republicans are not against raising taxes, they are just against raising taxes only for those who can afford it best.

in my family when times are tough we club together. those who have more pay more...why is this so scary for people who have profitted most from the now-burst bubbles?

posted December 21, 2012 12:50 PM            

quote:

---

To create more jobs, the creators need incentives to do so (tax and otherwise).

---

Yeah, "otherwise" would include customers for their product. That's FAR more important than what percentage of their revenue must be spent on taxes.

Kat hit the nail on the head noting stubbornness. This is ridiculous Randall. Why don't you just admit that we're right, and move on? That you're an entrepeneur doesn't give you special or extraordinary insight into how business works. We don't even know that your business is a success.

quote:

---

As are most liberals and conservatives, your opinion and my own are diametrically opposed, and the fact that you can't see that even further reinforces my point.

---

No. There's reality, and there's you trying to fight against it. That's not a difference of opinion. That's you being stubborn.

quote:

---

Hearing anti-capitalists defend supply and demand is almost laughable.

---

Hearing you decry liberals or Democrats as "anti-Capitalists" is what's laughable. Where do you suppose we get our money from? It's not the government. It's not the commune we live on. "Anti-Capitalist" is a ridiculous thing to say.

quote:

---

Yes, supply and demand is the mantra of capitalism, yet it is but one of a myriad of factors involved in the decisions made by the creators of jobs as to whether they will create jobs or remove them.

---

Finally, some acceptance! Yes, there are and can be other factors as well, but you won't find many companies that run from capturing the profits available to them, shunning the demand in favor of something else. In fact, when companies add jobs without regard for the demand of today, it's typically in anticipation of the demand of tomorrow. It seems like you tried to downgrade it when you called it a mantra, but there is no downgrading of this simple principle. There's no principle that is going to unseat it in business.

quote:

---

No, your posts the past few years are what reflect that you are anti-capitalism. Clearly, you abhor capitalism. And socialism is the antithesis to capitalism.

---

No, they don't. To say that is to say that you haven't been paying attention. Kat works for herself.

quote:

---

And in his latest proposal, Obama has agreed to permanently keep Bush's tax cuts. Permanently! And in the same proverbial breath, he also threw the people making under $250,000 a year under the bus, once again breaking his word. Imagine that.

---

I don't understand how people like you can say things like this. Obama's position forever has been that taxes only need to be raised on those making $250,000 or above. There was no "breaking his word" there. That was a continuation of what has been said for years.

posted December 21, 2012 04:45 PM            

meanwhile i hear the republicans' last act before christmas was to pass a bill which will never leave the house) cutting MEALS ON WHEELS for pete's sake, and not one penny from the military budget...i bet those in afghanistan and elsewhere will be SOOO thrilled!