Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Washington regulations don’t create jobs

March 5, 2014

WASHINGTON — My fight against unnecessary regulations is often construed by those that support big government programs as a fight to allow private companies to run wild without any oversight and any......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(43)

frogleggs

Apr-20-14 10:14 PM

At no other time

- in the U.S., or

- in the entire world,

- has INCOME INEQUALITY rose as fast and furious as it has

- in the thirty (30) year period beginning

- in the year 1977 and through 2007, when this study period was concluded . . .

FULLY,

- sixty-percent (60%) of ALL U.S.

NATIONAL INCOME ACCRUED

- to the TOP ONE (1%) of the rich species,

AND

- by definition those that vote republicanisms are the largest stakeholders in this species,

- creating one of the fastest growing oligarchy’s in the world.

- Don’t bother to disagree,

- if you can’t cite chapter and verse in the study where these facts were published

- it will only seal and serve to illustrate your ignorance!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Apr-02-14 9:58 PM

- When consumer’s don’t have money, the rich won’t get richer.

- Jobs are created by consumers.

- Wealth for the rich is appropriated from consumers who have decent paying jobs.

- no jobs for consumers,

- no wealth accumulation for the republican and democratic rich,

their businesses and their

corporations, plutocracies,

oligarchy’s, aristocracies.

- When consumers have poor paying or no jobs,

- there is no money that the rich, their corporations and businesses

can take from consumers,

- somewhere along that line, vuachee, you will be infected.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Apr-02-14 9:57 PM

More people were quantitatively and qualitatively

enrolled to what the government

called middle-class status during the period from the end of WW2 and declining with the secret Powell Manifesto to the u.s. chamber of commerce in 1971.

The floor fell from underneath the middle class and the poor, with shillary’s free trade agreements, and more noticeably, after willie signed the republican crafted financial modernization act of 1999 and then again with his signing of another republican crafted commodity futures and modernization act of 2000.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Apr-02-14 9:56 PM

Now than veauche, give readers a summary of why these three items are important to the economic collapse and the resultant second depression, greater in monetary terms than the Great Depression.

Vechauncyhe, don’t go into great detail,

just give readers a brief pré·cis something readers would appreciate,

if you could simplify at your level, sixth or seventh grade.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-24-14 7:36 PM

Seeing as you are such a genious according to you, how do you claim progressive policies...

1) raise people out of poverty?

2) decrease the gap between rich/middle/poor?

3) create an environment that supports wealth creation?

4) eliminates the haves from wielding the power to control?

Even in your utopia Whiz there will be the small group of elites, those who control, those with power. Only difference is it will be a much smaller group of people.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-24-14 7:06 PM

The Gates comment was in the context of the wealthy and charity. You claim they don't do charity. You are wrong.

My limited knowledge and exposure compared to your wild imagination and conspiracy theories: The things you talk about are the best argument for conservative principles of limited government. The rich and their political accomplices have too much power. How about we reign that in with good ole conservative principles.

I agree with you in that government has too much power. I disagree that we would be better off under progressive rule. Progressive policies don't create wealth, they create poverty and increase the divide between "wealthy" and "poor". Progressive policies restrict movement up the socioeconomic ladder, see the numbers on governement assistance currently. We certainly aren't under any republican or conservative policies the last 6 years.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-21-14 8:55 AM

A man in front of me buying a couple of tickets for the movie, told the counter girl he needed a receipt.

He casually mentioned, the "receipt" was for ?

Tax purposes!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-21-14 8:47 AM

Whizzy,

Give it up.

Quit ...

You're preaching to choirs of cretins.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-21-14 7:47 AM

gates' wealth came about and was furthered by his monopoly position, and the absent restraint of any government regulation(s)

before you were but a whisper,

before even that,

government was enforcing competitive positions,

not restrictive positions gained today by weak congresses and absent regulation enforcement

your limited knowledge and exposure to the real world ...

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-21-14 7:38 AM

consumers are the sole basis for companies and the sole basis for jobs or job creation

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-20-14 2:17 PM

Ok, Whiz,

1) Jesus would be niether. Jesus would not be a progressive because he wouldn't abide charity by extortion. Taxes can not be considered charity. Jesus wants people to give of their own free will and compassion, not man made laws.

2) Many large companies today grew from smaller ones. A good thing. Yes, companies buy competitors, another good thing to a point. Not all businesses are monopolies.

3) Yes it is good business to get the most money for your product. You blame business, you need to blame consumers. We have the ability not to purchase things we think are over-priced, yet we don't. Now somethings this doesn't apply too, mostly commoditites, gas and well as we know this year, propane. However, even in these cases when the price goes to high the market will drive for cheaper sources. There will be tough times, but that is were progress and invention come from. Maybe then Mr. O will get his green economy. Forcing it though will not work.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-20-14 2:17 PM

3) Yes, progressives haven't bought any in the congress. Absolutely correct. I mean you can't be serious Whiz. Nope, the unions don't have anyone in congress bought and paid for.

4) No, progressives never change laws to meet their needs. Can you say EPA? Can you say President Obama unilaterally delaying a law passed by congress. He has no authority. Can you say Department of Health and Human Services with the ACA?

5) The rich want more, yes they are greedy. Entitled, I'm not sure. To me the difference is one will "work" for it. The entitled poor we have in this country don't want to work for it, they just believe they deserve it because they live and you have it. It's a fine line and I don't completely disagree with you here Whiz but you paint all business as such and that is just simple not the case.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-20-14 2:16 PM

6) No rich ever help the poor? Huh? Good grief man Bill Gates man, although he is a pretty progressive rich man. An yes there are many rich and middle class who just will not help the poor. You may not like it but it is NOT illegal.

7) As to the corporate schemes yep some are underhanded. Some are cheap and dirty. However all may be legal. Some are the result of greed. Some are a result of government regulation forcing companies out to compete with foreign companies. Some are the result of very poor business decisions forced upon them by unions, can you say pensions? How could anyone think pensions were going to last forever? They make little to no business sense. Many are the result of all three.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-19-14 10:06 AM

Vauchee,

to repreat what you posted earlier...

“Whiz,

Jesus said it, and your point? “

The point being

- would jesus choose to be a conservative republican

or

- would jesus choose to be a liberal democrat ?

What’s the most lucrative position

What’s the most progressive position?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-19-14 9:58 AM

If you could see beyond your nose Pinocchio(s)…

but that’s not likely to happen soon,

Let’s get real

- enter a real play plan.

- the rich buy up all the competing businesses, companies and corporations,

- create their monopoly position,

- charge consumers highly inflated prices, because it’s good business to make the most from what you’ve got the position to do it from.

- Now who is left around to protect consumers?

- No one, because the rich, most are republicans, have eliminated through purchased congresses,

changed the law and eliminated consumer protection from the play book.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-19-14 9:55 AM

Of course, anyone with a brain could infer that this is a unfair subsidy for

- the rich, their businesses and

- their corporations,

- where their owners just happen to have selected the republican party to be their party of choice,

- because the republican party has the best record in history of taking advantage of everyone else.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-19-14 9:55 AM

Why should the rich be allowed to become ever richer?

Because they are rich,

- the entitlement mentality rich is entitled to more, by virtue that they have the power and means to convert greed into financial gain...

- because they have engineered more ways to take all the marbles.

- but, they have no financial incentive or even the idea of morality to help the poor.

As a last resort(s), (private and lavish...)

- but it’s really a new game plan thev've created, to further their financial position thus:

- at the very last the rich declare bankruptcy,

(because they had laws passed to allow this perk) to:

- disavow current contracts,

- restructure,

- “downsize” “right size”, and

- eventually out-source, in-source cheap labor, or off shore jobs, and

- then take get huge tax write offs

- ostensibly because “business conditions” warrant this bogus business behavior.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Whizzywhig

Mar-19-14 9:47 AM

This is not a wage-earner paid subsidy?

Wake up,

pull the sheet over your head and smell your own (brain) fh.arts!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-18-14 4:11 PM

Amen Brave, it's irritating when one can buy a car with their tax refund. And yes, I know about someone who did this.

Mind you, this same person was complaining about not having enough money to buy their children new school cloths a few months later.

As for Whiz and Frog, they're just funny, entertainment if you will. So wrong, so often it's almost hilarious. Only downside is they have the right to vote, but what are ya going to do about that.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BravesRock

Mar-18-14 3:19 PM

Well said, Vauche, but you're wasting your keystrokes on Froggy and Whiz. I have posted in here previously the disproportionate amount of taxes paid by those in the upper income brackets. There are loopholes, to be sure, and there will always be those who try to get out of paying their share, but I have far more frustration with those who not only pay no federal income tax, but receive a "refund" of several thousand dollars when they paid in little to nothing. That is not a refund, it is a subsidy, or handout, if you will.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Vauche

Mar-18-14 2:33 PM

Frog, you can't be serious!

Read, of the 43% of households that paid no federal income tax only around 1% are considered "wealthy". That number equates to about 4000 households. Hardly corresponds to your point of view.

With that knowledge we know your first post here is completely fallacious and pure hot air you created in the space between your ears.

The middle class does not pay 100% of the taxes. Don't construe this into me thinking they don't pay enough as you are likely to do as there is ample evidence to the contrary posted in these comment sections alone.

Why don't you ask Obama what he thinks of the law or the constitution?

He is the one we all should be afraid of. Executive privilige, dictatorship, tyrant. Unilaterally changing laws passed by congress. Not enforcing laws he does not agree with. This is complete disregard for our laws and constitution yet you say nothing.

Hypocrit anyone?

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:06 PM

Of Captains

- Tyc.oo.ns of Industry,

- Robber Barron’s &

- Monopolist’s . . .

Though many years have passed, much has changed,

but little has changed not much, for the Rich and their Entitlement Mentality:

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:05 PM

"Law?

What about the law?

Who cares about the law.

Hain’t we got money,

Hain't we got the power?"

— Comment alleged to have been made by

Commodore Cornelius Vanderbilt,

when warned that he might be violating the law . . .

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:04 PM

It has been argued

that we are now in a comparable economic period, the formative years of the Information Age. . .

Does the industrialization of America at the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth century hold any lessons for us today?

What forces can exert sufficient influence to rein in harmful business practices of the few, or

does government have to intervene on behalf of the majority?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-17-14 8:02 PM

. . . “Who cares about the law.

Hain’t we got money,

Hain't we got the power?"

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 43 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web