Democrats say the damnedest things.....

[Revoltingest]

But she's got a point....

She had several in her speech.
But I culled this specific one, which is utterly bogus.
I know....I've created jobs in business.
Government didn't do it for me.
The employees didn't do it for me.

So what is your advice? Should we vote for a third party...who...let's face it..are susceptible to the same shenanigans as the big two or should we just not vote at all and let the chips fall where they may?

I ran this post thru my translatingifier, & got......
"Vote only for the Big Two (Democrat, of course) cuz a 3rd party might possibly be as bad!"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

She had several in her speech.

Well I only commented on the one you posted...

But I culled this specific one, which is utterly bogus.
I know....I've created jobs in business.

If you say so...I mean I just posted a video of another "job creator" that disagrees with you. What should we think when you seem to imply consumers aren't job creators (see video) but another person with equal or more business experience says otherwise....

Government didn't do it for me.

Well we don't know enough about you, your business or it's history so we'll have to take your word for it.

I ran this post thru my translatingifier, & got......
"Vote only for the Big Two (Democrat, of course) cuz a 3rd party might possibly be as bad!"

Shucks no. I support anyone and everyon's right and ability to vote for whomever they want or whichever party they want. I recognize all politicians, regardless whatever party they're from, are people first and as such have ambitions in government and have the potential to do good things for the benefit of the people or to be a detriment to the people through various policies, decisions and alliances...

 

[Monk Of Reason]

So what is your advice? Should we vote for a third party...who...let's face it..are susceptible to the same shenanigans as the big two or should we just not vote at all and let the chips fall where they may?

Best advice is to scrap our current voting system and replace it with a more accurate one that holds representatives accountable. Not just with "you will loose the next election" but "You will be impeached and never be allowed to run again and we will hold an emergency election to replace you next Tuesday"

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Mayday, Wolf Pac and move to amend. Get the money out of politics. Step One. I support all three organizations.

I've heard of the Mayda Pac bu not the other...and I completly agree that money needs to be taken out of politics. Personally I don't see that happening anytime soon.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Best advice is to scrap our current voting system and replace it with a more accurate one that holds representatives accountable. Not just with "you will loose the next election" but "You will be impeached and never be allowed to run again and we will hold an emergency election to replace you next Tuesday"

I like it.....:yes:

 

[Epigram]

I've heard of the Mayda Pac bu not the other...and I completly agree that money needs to be taken out of politics. Personally I don't see that happening anytime soon.

I can't think that way. That might work for you but it doesn't hold water for me, it is literally a non-starter. Election day is coming soon so Mayday is being tested but Wolf PAC and Move to Amend have made quite a bit a progress and this seems like something that needs to happen. I understand where you are coming from and I was there but things do need to change.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I can't think that way. That might work for you but it doesn't hold water for me, it is literally a non-starter. Election day is coming soon so Mayday is being tested but Wolf PAC and Move to Amend have made quite a bit a progress and this seems like something that needs to happen. I understand where you are coming from and I was there but things do need to change.

I think you misunderstood me. I actually agree with you totally. There does need to be a change and I'm all in but I remain caucious about eliminating money in politics because the decision to keep it in stems from the highest court in the land. So we can either fight fire with fire or we can try to affect change at the top...and as it stands there seems to be no change from the highest court in the land other than to let more and more money in.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you say so...I mean I just posted a video of another "job creator" that disagrees with you.

Some talking head disagrees with me? I'm not surprised.
I've started businesses. I've hired people for jobs which previously didn't exist.
I'd say that gives me real world data which debunks Hillary's claim.
As a mere partner in a firm (which someone else started), as a homemaker,
& then as a politician, she seems to have gained no insight into how business
works. But it's possible that she really does understand, but is just lying in
order to pander, ie, she's either dumb or dishonest. Would you vote for her?

What should we think when you seem to imply consumers aren't job creators (see video) but another person with equal or more business experience says otherwise....

Customers are the reason we start businesses & hire workers.
But they do not create the jobs.

Well we don't know enough about you, your business or it's history so we'll have to take your word for it.

You needn't take my word for it. Others in business will have similar experiences.
Just ask Rev Rick. If you started a business, you won't find government agents at
your door offering money or other assistance.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Some talking head disagrees with me? I'm not surprised.
I've started businesses. I've hired people for jobs which previously didn't exist.
I'd say that gives me real world data which debunks Hillary's claim.
As a mere partner in a firm (which someone else started), as a homemaker,
& then as a politician, she seems to have gained no insight into how business
works. But it's possible that she really does understand, but is just lying in
order to pander, ie, she's either dumb or dishonest. Would you vote for her?

But she wasn't who I was talking about when I refenced "job creator" in my last post....

Customers are the reason we start businesses & hire workers.
But they do not create the jobs.

Sure they are. The more customers the more people you need to hire to support your increased customer base. The less customers you have then you can't sustain your high level of employment so with that decrease in revenue you tend to make changes. And that reduction in overhead usually starts with those in your employ.

Rich People Actually Don't Create The Jobs - Business Insider

The Real Job Creators: Consumers - Forbes

I know, I know...None of this is correct regardless........

You needn't take my word for it. Others in business will have similar experiences.
Just ask Rev Rick. If you started a business, you won't find government agents at
your door offering money or other assistance.

Well I never mentioned government. You brought that up.....

 

[Revoltingest]

Sure they are. The more customers the more people you need to hire to support your increased customer base. The less customers you have then you can't sustain your high level of employment so with that decrease in revenue you tend to make changes. And that reduction in overhead usually starts with those in your employ.

A specious claim does not become valid just because it appears in sources on
line To state that jobs are created because there is customer demand, does not
mean that the customers themselves create the jobs. The someone doing the
creating is the one who plans the business, raises the money, creates the positions,
& then hires the workers. (This is often lost on government employees, who have
the luxury of holding beliefs which are never tested in the real world.)

Imagine you start a business making widgets. You'll need workers to design the
facility, design the widgets, manufacture them, market them, sell them, service
them, & perform overhead functions. What is the process of creating & filling
these positions? If you say that the customers will do this for you, how do you
explain markets which didn't exist until the business created them (with workers
already in place)?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

A specious claim does not become valid just because it appears in sources on
line To state that jobs are created because there is customer demand, does not
mean that the customers themselves create the jobs. The someone doing the
creating is the one who plans the business, raises the money, creates the positions,
& then hires the workers. (This is often lost on government employees, who have
the luxury of holding beliefs which are never tested in the real world.) Imagine
you started a business making widgets. You'll need workers to design the facility,
design the widgets, manufacture them, market them, sell them, service them,
& perform overhead functions. What is the process of creating & filling these
positions?

Right....so I can excuse the fact that you reject the sources I submited but still stand by what I said considering the business owner I cited disagrees wih your premise. As a matter of fact there are many business owners that reject your premise that (you) are the job creator. It's more complicated than that. And as a former business owner I know all to well what creates jobs and what doesn't and you alone aren't the sole job creator. One aspect of job cretion is demand. If there is no customer base demanding your products or services then your self imposed title as job creator means very little. But we've been there and done that...The bottemline is there's truth in what Hilary said regardless of your disdain for what she said.

 

[Revoltingest]

Right....so I can excuse the fact that you reject the sources I submited but still stand by what I said considering the business owner I cited disagrees wih your premise. As a matter of fact there are many business owners that reject your premise that (you) are the job creator. It's more complicated than that. And as a former business owner I know all to well what creates jobs and what doesn't and you alone aren't the sole job creator. One aspect of job cretion is demand. If there is no customer base demanding your products or services then your self imposed title as job creator means very little. But we've been there and done that...The bottemline is there's truth in what Hilary said regardless of your disdain for what she said.

It seems that Democrats say the damnedest things because Democrats believe the
damnedest things. I don't reject your sources....just their loopy claims. Were
you a business owner, you would know that you created the jobs in your company.
Hillary (& others, apparently) see that economics is a complex interdependent
relationship of the many players.
You confuse interdependence with causation, ie, you see that without customers,
the jobs in business would not exist. Therefore, because there are customers, the
customers create the jobs. This is to ignore the fact that the business owner started
the company & hired the workers to make a profit by meeting the customers' demand.
Customers are an essential component of the economy, but they're about purchase &
consumption, which create an environment enabling businesses to create jobs.

 

[Revoltingest]

Let's look at what Hillary's strategy with this pandering to the anti-business portion
of the electorate. It recalls Obama's "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
The theme is that business is not that useful (doesn't create jobs), & that business
is undeserving (someone built it for you). It justifies campaigning on the platform
of robbing undeserving Peter (business, the well to do) to pay the envious & more
deserving Paul (ne'er do well voters). Burdensome regulation of business is OK, cuz
they don't create jobs anyway. Crushing taxation of the more productive citizens is
OK, cuz they don't pay their fair share. It sows the seeds of righteous conflict by
demonizing the foe.

Now for an old favorite....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5PU9GU2ztE

 

[metis]

Generally speaking, business owners generally don't hire people just for the hell of it, nor are they likely to expand their operations unless there's sufficient reason to believe that they expect greater demand for their product one way or another.

What we have seen over and over again is that if the poor and lower-middle income groups have more money, they tend to spend it more, thus stimulating the economy more because of creating increased demand. The same ratio does not, however, necessarily happen when people in the upper income levels get more money because they may not spend it or they may spend it other than in this country. This is one reason why the "Bush tax rebate" didn't work out too well because they found that only roughly 1/3 of the savings was actually spent on domestic goods and/or services over a one year period.

And it is this fact that is rather depressing in that, as medium income keeps declining in this country, and as people get more and more economically squeezed, our future prognosis in terms of demand isn't too promising. On top of that, there's the issue of more and more of our production being "Walmarted", namely cheap imports that has the effect of encouraging other companies to move their operations out of this country in order to compete, thus more jobs are lost, and businesses will continue to lower wages, and demand will continue to decline, and this doesn't bode well for our future.

 

[esmith]

So, let's look at it this way. Suppose that you live in a community of around 80,000. There are numerous grocery stores in the area. However, in the past few years housing has been developed in area that lies, on average, about 3-4 miles from two different major grocery store chains. Your company is one of these major stores; however, it is decided that locating a grocery store only in the area might be a good idea. You build the store and hire workers to staff the store. Now have the customers created the jobs or has the company created the jobs? Remember now that there are grocery stores within the immediate area and it is relatively easy to shop at the two close stores or other stores that are a few more miles distance. There is basically no public transportation. Yes, the company saw a market but by building this store they have basically have taken customers away from there other stores in the area and incurred the expense of staffing it.

 

[metis]

So, let's look at it this way. Suppose that you live in a community of around 80,000. There are numerous grocery stores in the area. However, in the past few years housing has been developed in area that lies, on average, about 3-4 miles from two different major grocery store chains. Your company is one of these major stores; however, it is decided that locating a grocery store only in the area might be a good idea. You build the store and hire workers to staff the store. Now have the customers created the jobs or has the company created the jobs? Remember now that there are grocery stores within the immediate area and it is relatively easy to shop at the two close stores or other stores that are a few more miles distance. There is basically no public transportation. Yes, the company saw a market but by building this store they have basically have taken customers away from there other stores in the area and incurred the expense of staffing it.

But you're not likely to build the store unless you have a pretty good idea that there's enough demand in the area to warrant taking the chance. The store itself is not likely to create demand since there are other stores elsewhere whereas one could go.

However, with this being said, sometimes it can work the other way in that the product itself may stimulate demand, such as what we see with the various Apple phones for example. However, this is more the exception than the rule.

 

[Epigram]

Let's look at what Hillary's strategy with this pandering to the anti-business portion
of the electorate. It recalls Obama's "If you've got a business, you didn't build that."
The theme is that business is not that useful (doesn't create jobs), & that business
is undeserving (someone built it for you). It justifies campaigning on the platform
of robbing undeserving Peter (business, the well to do) to pay the envious & more
deserving Paul (ne'er do well voters). Burdensome regulation of business is OK, cuz
they don't create jobs anyway. Crushing taxation of the more productive citizens is
OK, cuz they don't pay their fair share. It sows the seeds of righteous conflict by
demonizing the foe.

I find it humorous that you posted the "You didn't build it" video. I really thought that is was a well explained truth that served as fantastic marketing mainly among the core people who wanted it to be something more than it really ever was. Romney really harped on that and struck a chord with a lot of people but he did it dishonestly and drove, i believe, more people away away then he attracted. I myself am a fantastic programmer but I have no idea how to build a cpu though I have some basic ability to create electricity I pretty much rely on the grid and I need my roads shoveled and clear of debris so I can make it to work etc etc. I can sit at my desk unmolested because of government, police and other people. e.g. Steve Jobs built a legacy but he did it with the help of other people. He is not some Ayn Randian god who happened upon some cave people and blessed them with his job creation abilities which in some cases required suicide nets.

I would agree that Elizabeth Warren did a better job with you didn't build that speech but just running with the Atlas Shrugged theme is dishonest or lazy or possibly some combination there of.

 

[Revoltingest]

I find it humorous that you posted the "You didn't build it" video. I really thought that is was a well explained truth that served as fantastic marketing mainly among the core people who wanted it to be something more than it really ever was.

While the opposite of a "truth", it was definitely effective preaching to the choir.
The idea that "you didn't build that" & "someone built it for you" is utterly ludicrous
to anyone who has started & built a business. But the notion that business owners
are just passive lucky beneficiaries of the largess of others really appeals to those
who seek a wealth transfer to themselves.

 

[Epigram]

While the opposite of a "truth", it was definitely effective preaching to the choir.
The idea that "you didn't build that" & "someone built it for you" is utterly ludicrous
to anyone who has started & built a business. But the notion that business owners
are just passive lucky beneficiaries of the largess of others really appeals to those
who seek a wealth transfer to themselves.

I am not sure what your argument is. It is preaching to the choir, small business owners do work hard but created their business with the help of many people that they may not even be aware of, think of opening a gas station in central africa vs new jersey, new jersey is going to provide a whole environment that enables the small business creation not to mention the financing etc. Its a risk to start a small business and many fail but of those that succeed, it is not always because they are ayn randian gods with grit... sometimes its place and time and usually a little bit of luck.

Steve Jobs never believed in charity where as Bill Gates thinks its his life duty to help others with what he gained. Both are business owners, both built their businesses but Bill will be the first to tell you he had a lot of help and luck... (Gladwell writes about it somewhere but there are many sources) I don't subscribe to the sheep and atlas shrugged gods argument. If I give 10 people a dunkin donuts their success will depend more on their location, customer base and their staff then it will do on the owners god like ability to own a business.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not sure what your argument is. It is preaching to the choir, small business do work hard but created their business with the help of many people they may not even be aware of, think of opening a gas station in central africa vs new jersey, new jersey is going to provide a whole environment that enables the small business creation not to mention the financing etc. Its a risk to start a small business and many fail but of those that succeed its not always because they are ayn randian gods with grit... sometimes its place and time and usually a little bit of luck.

Business types know that they generally work with others. This isn't really in dispute.
When Obama says "you didn't build that" & "somebody else made that happen", this is
entirely different from a more reasonable claim that we didn't do it alone. No, he was
dismissive with these utterly false statements. Of course, he later modified them to have
a different & more plausible meaning, but he nonetheless said something damnable.

Steve Jobs never believed in charity where as Bill Gates thinks its his life duty to help others with what he gained. Both are business owners, both built their businesses but Bill will be the first to tell you he had a lot of help and luck... (Gladwell writes about it somewhere but there are many sources) I don't subscribe to the sheep and atlas shrugged gods argument. If I give 10 people a dunkin donuts their success will depend more on their location, customer base and their staff then it will do on the owners god like ability to own a business.

Would you say these 2 guys didn't build their businesses, & that someone else made it happen?
Of course not....that would be ridiculous. Obama dismisses their brilliance & hard work,
chalking it up to luck & the work of others. But what can we expect from a man who before
his presidency never had any executive or business experience. He can hold dysfunctional
beliefs about business because he's never been tested in the real world.