Obama promises more than 600,000 stimulus jobs

Full story: Newsday 109,552
President Barack Obama promised Monday to deliver more than 600,000 jobs through his $787 billion stimulus plan this summer, with federal agencies pumping billions into public works projects, schools and summer youth programs. Read more

“Forward - over the cliff!!”

Since: Jul 10

Soetoro, Kenya

#115927 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
You missed it.
Care to point to it?

“Forward - over the cliff!!”

Since: Jul 10

Soetoro, Kenya

#115928 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Lamest whine yet.
My statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You remain dismissed.
And yes - I can keep doing this all year.
Let him dwell on this: Corporations really don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. Corporations are people.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115929 Jun 18, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Let him dwell on this: Corporations really don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. Corporations are people.
You'll be sorry.

Giving OKB a complex real-life concept involving corporate finance is like giving a 17-year-old an F16 and a full load-out, but without the training and supervision.

Amazing maneuvers followed shortly by epic failure and a smoking crater.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115930 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Lamest whine yet.
My statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You remain dismissed.
And yes - I can keep doing this all year.
Your premise remains false. All things o not remain equal when it comes to costs of running a busness over time.

Dismissed.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115931 Jun 18, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Care to point to it?
Show me any where that I stated there was a plan out in the open that would do that.

Why not go back and post a link to my original post on the subject so you can show us where I gave you the idea that there was one.

I think it is an excellent idea though. Much better than Teddy's false premises of how businesses operate.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115932 Jun 18, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Let him dwell on this: Corporations really don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. Corporations are people.
If corporations don't pay taxes then there should be no problem taxing them 100% of gross. Chew on that a while.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115933 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll be sorry.
Giving OKB a complex real-life concept involving corporate finance is like giving a 17-year-old an F16 and a full load-out, but without the training and supervision.
Amazing maneuvers followed shortly by epic failure and a smoking crater.
Giving you a simple problem involving finance or business has proven to be beyond your capacity of rational discussion lately.

Take your premise that all things remain equal when operating a business over time. That is like saying windmills can supply us with endless energy if winds blew at the same speed 24/7/365.

Where does an American corporation get its voter registration card?

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115934 Jun 18, 2012
Pfluger the Union Monkey wrote:
<quoted text>
Let him dwell on this: Corporations really don't pay taxes, people pay taxes. Corporations are people.
Could you direct us to the office that issues corporations that are 18 years of age or older its voter registration card?

Or would you rather say that corporations and certain other non-human entitities have been granted limited rights that are necessry for the conduct of their business?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115935 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Your premise remains false. All things o not remain equal when it comes to costs of running a busness over time.
Dismissed.
My premise of ceteris paribus is made for a specific purpose, and is entirely valid for purposes of this discussion.

When discussing the resulting effect of changing one variable (in this case, corporate tax rates) in a complex system, the universally accepted analytical practice is to hold all other variables constant in order to isolate the effect of the variable in question.

Only a clumsy partisan hack would argue otherwise.

My statement therefore remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.

You remain dismissed.

Are you really going to continue flinging poo on yourself this way?

Since: Aug 11

Hagerhill, KY

#115936 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't be silly. I don't have to prove a premise, nor am I required to alter my statement to something else because you are unable to refute it as I've stated it.
Still more lame deflection.
My statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things - WHICH INCLUDES OTHER EXPENSES - remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You're dismissed. Again.
Since you have never seemed to have run a business Teddy, yes, you're partially correct that expenditure increases are passed down to the consumer, but only to a point. One can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear. It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business. If a business has an expenditure it cannot pass down to the consumer, the business must then find a way to slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black.

Economics 101 doesn't seem to be your forte' imho.

Class dismissed.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115937 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
My premise of ceteris paribus is made for a specific purpose, and is entirely valid for purposes of this discussion.
When discussing the resulting effect of changing one variable (in this case, corporate tax rates) in a complex system, the universally accepted analytical practice is to hold all other variables constant in order to isolate the effect of the variable in question.
Only a clumsy partisan hack would argue otherwise.
My statement therefore remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
You remain dismissed.
Are you really going to continue flinging poo on yourself this way?
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.

A tax increase can result in the following:

1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.

2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.

3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.

It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.

But you keep tap dancing. It suits you.

Since: Aug 11

Hagerhill, KY

#115938 Jun 18, 2012
The company I worked for compensated by speeding production up. The consumer didn't see a nickel's worth of increase.
joe

San Anselmo, CA

#115939 Jun 18, 2012
nac wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha, enlighten me as to what the blind followers think fast & furious was all about please. This should be good...
Another right wing deflection. You don't know what it was about and can't explain it so claim I should do it for you. So, you define it if you can, Mr. Independent.

This should be good...
TSM

El Paso, TX

#115940 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.
A tax increase can result in the following:
1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.
2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.
3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.
It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.
But you keep tap dancing. It suits you.
Okboston you are Clueless!! To engage you would break one of my most adhere to rule “Better to keep your mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt"? Boston the Floors Yours!!
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115941 Jun 18, 2012
gaytor_bayt wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you have never seemed to have run a business Teddy, yes, you're partially correct that expenditure increases are passed down to the consumer, but only to a point. One can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear. It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business. If a business has an expenditure it cannot pass down to the consumer, the business must then find a way to slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black.
Economics 101 doesn't seem to be your forte' imho.
Class dismissed.
You get a C+, gatorbait.

Makeup question to salvage your grade:

1) If there were ways to "slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black" available to you _before_ corp taxes were increased on your business, WHY DIDN'T YOU, and produce better profits? Why are you waiting until you're in a loss-making position before effecting changes for efficiency? Answer - You're an incompetent, lazy manager. You're fired.

And an extra credit question - get this right and you MIGHT pass the test:

2) If you are a competent manager, already running your business at maximum efficiency so there is no possible way to further "slim down the delivery process," when US corporate taxes are raised on your business, pushing you beyond the point where "expenditure increases (can be) passed down to the consumer" because "one can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear," WHAT HAPPENS?

(Big hint - as you seem to need it - from your own post: "It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business).

Class dismissed.
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115942 Jun 18, 2012
okboston wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, your premise is good for classroom work of a rudimentary level. Not for real life which is what we are discussing.
A tax increase can result in the following:
1. Straight pass through of 100% of the increase to the customer.
2. An offset of the tax increase through increased productivity; reduced prices from suppliers; less wage expenses (the company freezing wages until the taxes are absorbed.;) reduced expenses (turning the thermostat down or up depending on time of year to reduce utitlity expenses; or a combination of the above.
3. A combination of 1 & 2 above resulting in a partial pass through of tghe tax increase to customers.
It should be noted that even businesses in the same industry will have different stituations that will force them to respond differently based on their own circumstances.
Your #1 is correct.

Your #2 is refuted by the simple observation that the profit motive drives any well-run and well-managed business to have already implemented any available efficiencies in order to realized increased profit.

Your #3 is just as fallacious as #2, for the same reason.

Thus my statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.

Now, if you wish me to modify my statement to this:

"In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products, IF THE CORPORATION IS NOT TAXED OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER," then I would agree to this.

I would dismiss you again, but it's clear you really ARE compelled to continue flinging poo on yourself this way, aren't you?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115943 Jun 18, 2012
gaytor_bayt wrote:
The company I worked for compensated by speeding production up. The consumer didn't see a nickel's worth of increase.
Compensated for what?
Teddy R

Mclean, VA

#115944 Jun 18, 2012
joe wrote:
<quoted text>
Another right wing deflection. You don't know what it was about and can't explain it so claim I should do it for you. So, you define it if you can, Mr. Independent.
This should be good...
You're such a childish pouter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Fast_a...

Now carry on. Tell us why Holder is stonewalling and why he won't turn over what Congress is demanding.

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115945 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
You get a C+, gatorbait.
Makeup question to salvage your grade:
1) If there were ways to "slim down the delivery process to recoup the losses to stay in the black" available to you _before_ corp taxes were increased on your business, WHY DIDN'T YOU, and produce better profits? Why are you waiting until you're in a loss-making position before effecting changes for efficiency? Answer - You're an incompetent, lazy manager. You're fired.
And an extra credit question - get this right and you MIGHT pass the test:
2) If you are a competent manager, already running your business at maximum efficiency so there is no possible way to further "slim down the delivery process," when US corporate taxes are raised on your business, pushing you beyond the point where "expenditure increases (can be) passed down to the consumer" because "one can only charge for goods and services what the market will bear," WHAT HAPPENS?
(Big hint - as you seem to need it - from your own post: "It is entirely possible to charge ones way out of business).
Class dismissed.
You really are that ignorant of the process aren't you?

In most businesses, making the process more efficient often means that you use CAPEX to purchase new equipment. Many times you might want to wait until your other equipment has been totally depreciated OR the CAPEX is not worthwhile without some other problem forcing the issue.

For always trying to run as efficiently as possible and spending the money necesaary to do that without watching expenses, YOUR FIRED!

Since: Aug 07

South Central Virginia

#115946 Jun 18, 2012
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Your #1 is correct.
Your #2 is refuted by the simple observation that the profit motive drives any well-run and well-managed business to have already implemented any available efficiencies in order to realized increased profit.
Your #3 is just as fallacious as #2, for the same reason.
Thus my statement remains PROVEN: In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products.
Now, if you wish me to modify my statement to this:
"In the long run, all other things remaining equal, taxes levied on corporations are simply passed on to, and therefore paid by, their customers in the prices of their products, IF THE CORPORATION IS NOT TAXED OUT OF BUSINESS ALTOGETHER," then I would agree to this.
I would dismiss you again, but it's clear you really ARE compelled to continue flinging poo on yourself this way, aren't you?
The profit motive often says to wait until an expense can pay for itself. Unlike you, I would not spend dollars to save dimes. YOUR FIRED!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Barack Obama Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US, UN push Europe to make strong return to pea... 2 min novus ordo seclorum 5
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 min woodtick57 319,762
News Official resigns after insulting Obama, Holder,... 3 min ACTUALLY 95
News The View that Putin's Advisor Has on Obama's Uk... 4 min George 247
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min Yeah 1,205,501
News Obama-bashing ads by abortion foe Randall Terry... (Jun '11) 9 min hornback12 103
News Attorney John Morgan backs marijuana legalization (Apr '13) 57 min HELL ON EARTH 7
More from around the web