Yeah, the caller used inflammatory language in an attempt to make his point, which didn't work. The main point is exactly what described and a good one. It makes the case that tax breaks or incentives shouldn't go to those who have the wealth and rarely if ever use that wealth to create new jobs, but to the entrepreneurs who do.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Actually, the caller does NOT make the case.
He suggests it to be true, but he does very little to actually "make the case".

tailgater wrote:

Again, quibbling over semantics. Holy ****.

The definition of making a case is to present an argument. You may think the argument isn't presented well enough, fine, but he did present one.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Again, quibbling over semantics. Holy ****.

The definition of making a case is to present an argument. You may think the argument isn't presented well enough, fine, but he did present one.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Yeah, I guess I'm that stupid. Your example the case the caller made was not a good one.

I'm not going to argue this point any more.

FuzzNJ wrote:

What's to argue?
Tax cuts and subsidies for specific groups won't always produce the positive economic impact desired.
Pretty simple concept to me- at this point...

rfenst wrote:

The argument with TG is whether or not 'made a case' means the argument made is correct, sound worth pursuing or just someone making an argument. That's what I won't argue any longer.

As far as the caller's point in the original post, yes, I think it is an interesting point, that tax cuts, breaks, credits for the wealthy does not create jobs. We've not seen that in 30 years of trickle down.

FuzzNJ wrote:

The good, old, philosophical notion of the "American Dream"?
Depends what you mean and how you define it...

rfenst wrote:

Opportunity? Maybe. Ability, desire, luck (always a bit of a factor), timing, skill, equal chance and capital, maybe not so much.

And as Robert said, depends what you mean by success. There are millions of working poor who didn't starve to death today, that could be classified by some as a success, they're still living, but I wouldn't.

FuzzNJ wrote:

It makes the case that tax breaks or incentives shouldn't go to those who have the wealth and rarely if ever use that wealth to create new jobs, but to the entrepreneurs who do.

FuzzNJ wrote:

As far as the caller's point in the original post, yes, I think it is an interesting point, that tax cuts, breaks, credits for the wealthy does not create jobs. We've not seen that in 30 years of trickle down.

FuzzNJ wrote:

FuzzNJ

why would anyone pay attention to someone with such
lack of control that he would end up "shopping" for
prescription pain killers, and has had three failed
marriage with women he met on the computer, and
who makes fun of the disabled?

RICKAMAVEN wrote:

So my takeaway is the caller walked into someone's privately held business, asked for, and accepted, a job. (I'm pretty sure "slave traders" didn't drag him in there in chains).

In exchange for whatever he did for this guy, he received good pay and good benefits.

Later, the guy who took all the financial risk, decided he wanted to do something else with a portion of HIS business.

And so this caller, who is now bitter because he can't find a similar situation, lines up the dominoes in his circus brain to extrapolate that Capitalism is slavery

Have I got that about right?

And some number of days, weeks or months from now, when someone else offers him a similar "slave" job with good pay and good benefits, I'm sure he'll willingly enslave himself again.

Once again, those who can, do. Those who can't (or won't), sit around, bitch about those who do, and wait for the government to pay their bills.

:-({|=

snowwolf777 wrote:

Problem 1: How do you sort out an entrepreneur versus a wealthy person who won't use the tax break versus a wealthy person that will use the tax break.

Problem 2: What defines "won't use the tax break"? Is it only defined as growing an existing business or could starting a new business also qualify? What about putting the money in CDs at Bank of America who then uses it for Small Business Association loans? What about buying a G5 which could create American jobs?


Based on your later comment of trickle down not working, I suspect the case you're wanting to try and force it into making is that tax cuts are useless, tax them all and let Science sort them out, and given enough time, trickle-up economics might work.

HockeyDad wrote:

Actually, the caller wanted to "make the case" that Capitalism is a form of slavery.
While trying (unsuccessfully) to do this, he cited as evidence tax breaks to business owners.

While discussing this within this thread, somewhere along the line you and rfenst have decided that the callers point was in regards to these tax breaks.

The liberal mind has a short attention span.


But if we're going to discuss this aspect of the discussion, then I'd be happy to oblige.
MOST companies don't simply stop growing by choice. This is the callers premise, and it is entirely false.
I'm sure singular examples could be cited, but this brings us back to my speed limit argument.

tailgater wrote:

Actually, the caller wanted to "make the case" that Capitalism is a form of slavery.
While trying (unsuccessfully) to do this, he cited as evidence tax breaks to business owners.

While discussing this within this thread, somewhere along the line you and rfenst have decided that the callers point was in regards to these tax breaks.

The liberal mind has a short attention span.

tailgater wrote: