The One Question that will stump ALL your Republican friends...

[madinmaryland]

Thank you to Moveon.org

[liberal N proud]

1. Not that you will get an answer from the everyday dunderhed republican, but the reason is...

Then "job creators" want 100%.

Then they will create all sorts of jobs that don't pay anything.

[athenasatanjesus]

2. I'm guessing most republicans will question the ratio.

[bowens43]

3. Republican friends??????????

[LiberalLoner]

8. Excuse me? Most Democrats are hypocrites? Really? I don't think so at all.

[siligut]

12. You are wrong

And your statement isn't fair at all.

[demosincebirth]

19. He must be a troll hiding just below the radar.

[siligut]

27. My first thought too

Time will tell . . .

[classof56]

17. Say what?

Gee whiz--the things I'm learning about myself lately. First it was those two really bad words Rushbo used to describe me 'cause I once used birth control, now I see I'm a hypocrite 'cause I'm a Democrat. Very enlightening!

Unless you meant to use that sarcasm thingie...

Peace.

[B Calm]

5. If they answered correctly they would say

they don't need more wealth because they don't create jobs. Demand creates jobs and the rich just capitalize on the demand.

But they won't, they'll just believe what they want to believe and ignore factual proof. Hard to communicate with people who deal in beliefs. . .

[JHB]

6. My guess is they'll tell you you're an idiot, since nobody makes a job unless it can make them money

...and will entriely miss the contradiction because it is not coming from one of their "trusted sources".

[badtoworse]

13. What's idiotic about that?

The reason why jobs are created is because an employer can't meet demand with the staff he has. Obviously, he's expecting the newly created job to add to his bottom line. If it didn't, he wouldn't have created the job. That's business and there's nothing wrong with that.

[JHB]

18. Do you mean why would Republicans tell you it is idiotic?

I suspect we may have a misinterpertation or mis-attribution at work here, so forgive me for restating the obvious:

The Republicans argue that wealty people create jobs, so they should have more money (tax breaks, etc) with which to do it.

However, what we both noted, is that jobs are created in order to meet demand. More money for the already-well-off doesnt do much to boost demand, and where it does it is at the high end that doesn't produce many jobs. If you want to create jobs across the broader economy, then people need to have enough money to spend. No demand, no need for jobs to meet demand, so why do the well-off need those tax breaks again?

Rich people don't create jobs. People who are trying to become well-off and need other people to help them do it do. The top 1% will not creat jobs just because they have more money, because they already do.

[badtoworse]

25. My point is that the problem is not a shortage of capital

In many cases, people with money to invest in job creating enterprises do it in other countries that are more business friendly. It's not a very popular concept on DU, but the US is not that competitive in the world market. We need to offer businesses a better deal in terms of labor costs, energy costs, taxes and the regulatory environment if we want to attract jobs away from countries like China, India, Brasil and others.

[JHB]

26. And what do you prescribe to make us more competitive and business friendly?

[badtoworse]

30. Here are some suggestions

Lower energy costs by expanding the use of abundant (and currently low priced) natural gas supplies made available with fracking and directional drilling.
Expand areas that are open to oil and gas exploration
Scale back RPS requirements that drive up the cost of electricity.
Simplify the tax code and pass a long term policy so businesses will know what taxes will be more than 2 years (or less) into the future
Provide accelerated depreciation and negotiated tax rates for new businesses.
Streamline regulatory reporting requirements

I believe labor costs will equalize in time simply because of the oversupply of labor we currently have. I believe unions should be more proactive and try to negotiate long term, lower cost arrangements with businesses willing to build new plants.

At the same time, we do need to level the playing field and impose tariffs on countries that achieve a low production cost by ignoring even basic environmental protections.

[starroute]

32. In other words, cuts taxes on the wealthy, slash regulations, and lower wages

This is not a winning recipe for anyone except the very rich.

And there's no reason to believe, for example, that fracking and increased drilling will lower energy costs, since those are driven by global demand and not by domestic supply. In fact, higher energy costs are more likely to bring jobs back to the U.S., since they will make it less economically efficient to offshore production and then re-import the finished products.

The greatest strength of this country is that it still provides the world's strongest market for goods and services. Our first priority should be ensuring the health of that market -- which means keeping wages up and relieving the burden of debt, particularly on young people and families. Our second should be providing the conditions to attract domestic production, from education to infrastructure. Our third might involve an attempt to restore the reputation the U.S. used to have as a source of high-quality, innovative products.

But bribing corporations and corporate executives, either with lower taxes or with third-world working conditions, is a non-starter.

[badtoworse]

34. I see a difference between a negotiated tax deal that is specific to one plant or business...

and across the board tax cuts for the wealthy. No new plant; no tax break. The same applies to accelerated depreciation - it has no value unless you invest in assets to depreciate.

As far as energy costs go, you couldn't be more wrong. Natural gas is currently selling for about $2.25 per MCF - cheaper than it's been in about 10 years and it might go even lower (As a point of reference, it sold for about $8.50 in 2008). Why? Fracking and directional drilling have opened up vast new reserves of natural gas and NGL's for production. At $2.25, it's cheaper than it is in many competing countries and thus attractive to companies that use lots of it. All of the projections I have seen are forecasting natural gas prices to stay low for the forseeable future.

The problem with your approach is that you have no revenue source to fund it. Where are you going to get the money to pay off the debt of the young people and families? Keep wages up? How? The law of supply and demand is working against you. As far as the US being the world's major market that is true, but we are not adding the value needed to sustain that. IMO, it's been largely sustained with debt in recent years and that is not sustainable.

[JHB]

40. More specifically, how would you encourage companies to accept the higher overhead...

...that comes with paying people living wages, incentivizing the use of carrots rather than sticks to improve performance, improving working conditions, halting anti-union efforts, etc.

In short, what incentive does a company have to contribute to the wider economy by circulating part of the value created at lower levels (i.e., pay people more) instead of just shooting that same value upward to the owners and shareholders?

Please be specific, because much of the resistance you've noted comes from several decades of prescriptions for "creating jobs" which had specific recommendations to be more "business friendly" that were pretty obvious in the ways they would make money for some people, but left as a handwave how this would improve things for lower level employees in the broader economy. Yet the fruits of this arrangement never quite reach down that far, so we have three decades of stagnant wages and ever-more precarious jobs in the face of booming productivity and high profits.

[badtoworse]

42. The short answer is none the way the economy is structured

Companies compete for investment capital and a company that did what you suggest would see lower returns and the value of their shares would plummet. The company might not even survive. Management has a fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to protect and try to grow their investment, so they could not do what you suggest. You talk about companies as if they are separate and apart from the shareholders with discretion to ignore them. The shareholders OWN the company and it's up to them whether they want to accept lower returns or greater risk with their investment.

The environment we had three decades ago is gone forever and there is no way that anyone can bring it back. Look at what happened over the same period of time in the economies that have the jobs that used to be ours. They boomed. Why? They were willing and able to provide the same goods and services that we were at lower cost. We now operate in a global marketplace. The value of goods and services, and the labor needed to produce them is determined in the world market, not just the US and I don't know how to change that.

I look at where things are made and pay a premium for American made products when I can find them (which isn't very often.) A better approach might be to focus on getting consumers to demand more (higher quality?) American made products.

[JHB]

44. And how are they going to do that if they don't have jobs?

It can be a little tough to be fussy when you're trying to keep your head above water. Look at any thread that talks about Walmart: there are people who would gladly stop shopping there if they could afford to.

As to corporations and shareholders, I know how that works. I also know that it doesn't always work the way it is supposed to, with executives getting large compensation despite poor performance for the shareholders because their contracts stipulate it, thanks to overly-compliant boards. And plenty of small shareholders don't keep close watch on a company, or can't just sell because their shares are tied up in some sort of plan (you recall how Enron management unloaded shares, but employees with shares as part of their 401K were not able to sell).

What you highlight is the real need: to restructure the economy. Not necessarily big things all at once, but some action is necessary. I recall is some other thread you had mentioned supporting restoring a "public good" requirement for corporations operating in this country (please correct me if I have it wrong). There is also a need to shift thinking away from the quarterly report and towards more strategic thinking.

[fasttense]

39. Your economic views are very RepubliCON-like.

Of course there is NO shortage of capital. That 1% is hiding billions, like Romney does, in foreign banks.

If the US is just so awful and business-unfriendly then why do we have a $114 Billion Trade deficit???? The highest in history.

Why is the Great business-friendly Communist China selling most of their products here in the US, if as you say the US is just so awful to businesses????? Let's stop buying Chinese made products and see how long China remains business friendly.

Did you know great swaths of China are constantly shrouded in smog and thousands of people die from pollution every year?

Did you know that people in Communist China are committing suicide by the hundreds because of the sweat shops they are forced to work in?

The US has the LOWEST EFFECTIVE corporate taxes in the world. Yeah, the Chamber of commerce claims it's 35% but the real effective rate, the rate that corporation actually end up paying, is in the teens. And many, many, many corporations pay zero taxes but AND get refunds too.

Yeah we should be more like China a Totalitarian Nation that will jail you if you goggle the word democracy. Your idea of business friendly fits better in a dictatorship dreamt up by Stalin then in a democracy. Giving up freedom for a job is not my idea of living.

[badtoworse]

41. So let's hear your plan for SUSTAINABLE job growth.

[rhett o rick]

21. Problem is that the "job creators" have learned it is easier to steal money than

make money.

[nadinbrzezinski]

7. They first would need to get off faith economics

[KamaAina]

9. "How do you spell 'cat'?"?

[joeybee12]

10. George Carlin: Repukes say the rich need more money for incentive...

But if we give the poor money, they'll lose their incentive.

[donnasgirl]

11. one more question

If the GOP is so sure president Obama's policies will fail,why don't they implement them and show the country he is wrong.I will tell you why,it's because he will not fail.

[MACARD]

15. the greatest fear of the GOP is that Obama will succeed

if Obama is successful then their party platform, "Obama ruined us, we will save the world from Obama, black people, gays, women, non-Christians, non-Americans, and those who arn't right wing", is invalid.

[Uncle Joe]

14. Because with the rising cost of gas, 99% of all the wealth in the U.S just doesn't go as far

as it used to.

All they need is 100% of the wealth plus a pint of blood from each American probably on a weekly basis, that's why vampires have become so popular in the corporate media's programming to let us know how important they are.

Who cares if they drain you of life's existence, they look really GQ doing it and looking good is most important, isn't it?

Thanks for the thread, madinmaryland.

[badtoworse]

16. They don't need more wealth.

There are more business friendly environments elsewhwere in the world. I invest where I expect to get the best returns; don't you? I expect the rich do the same.

[Smilo]

20. Because they are greedy

bawstards and want to take us back to the pre-golden age era.

[subterranean]

22. I question the accuracy of that statistic.

According to everything I've read, the share of wealth owned by the top 1% is closer to 40%.

[SunSeeker]

37. I think you're relying on outdated data. Inequality has gotten a LOT worse in the last few years.

According to the most recent information, the Forbes 400 now have a greater net worth than the bottom 50% of U.S. households combined. In 2009, the total net worth of the Forbes 400 was $1.27 trillion. The best information now available shows that in 2009 the bottom 60% (yes, now it's 60%, not 50%) of U.S. households owned only 2.3% of total U.S. wealth.

Total U.S. household net worth -- rich, middle class and poor combined -- at the time the Forbes list came out was $53.15 trillion. So the bottom 60% of households possessed just $1.22 trillion of that $53.15 trillion, less than the Forbes 400.

Thus, the Forbes 400, i.e. the 400 richest Americans, unquestionably have more wealth than the bottom 50%. Michael Moore reiterated this statistic in his moving March 5, 2011 speech in Madison. (Full text is at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/america-is-not-broke)

By contrast, in 2007 the bottom 50% of U.S. households owned slightly more wealth than the Forbes 400; the economic meltdown has hurt the bottom more than the top. (And in fact, in 2010 the net worth of the Forbes 400 jumped to $1.37 trillion.)

[mistertrickster]

23. I like this . . . but it's the Top TEN percent

that owns 93 percent of the wealth.

[stuntcat]

24. yah ONE percent and NINETY percent is only 91%

It makes the point though

And it makes me kinda sad that so many Americans think this is okay.

[WhatintheWorld]

28. Won't stump anyone.

It's a really stupid question not worth discussing.

[redwitch]

29. Where in the world did YOU come from?And

if it isn't worth discussing hows about you stay out of the discussion?

[noiretextatique]

31. right,,,you've had the capital since reagan, so where are the american jobs?

in china, and elsewhere. thanks, job creators

[ErikJ]

33. The top 1% owns MORE wealth than the BOTTOM 90% of Americans

This is from the WSJ:

According to his analysis, the top 1% held 34.6% of all national wealth in 2007. By Dec. 31, 2009, they held 35.6%.

Meanwhile, share of national wealth held by the bottom 90% fell to 25% from 27%.

http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2010/04/30/top-1-increased-their-share-of-wealth-in-financial-crisis/

[certainot]

35. another one- ask them if they can name anything important that limbaugh has been right about

bush? bank deregulation? iraq? debt ceiling? (he spent months priming the teabaggers, telling them it would force obama to cut spending), global warming? sandra fluke?

[VPStoltz]

36. Oh hell, they'd be stumped by "which is your left hand?"

[TheKentuckian]

38. I don't thing I have the spiritual energy to continue to indulge their delusions.

All of the faithful to the official state secular religion may as well be talking about riding unicorns to super happy time in the morning or the dangers of my soul slipping out when I sneeze as far as I'm concerned anymore.

If fucking reality isn't a good enough argument for ya then all the incisive points, charts, stats, pictures, and pointed arguments in the world would seem of only minimal effectiveness.

[Thor_MN]

43. The conservatives having been drinking supply side koolaide so long, they can't recognize

that it is demand that moves the markets. No amount of stimulus and tax breaks would have been enough to save the buggy whip industry. If there is no demand, it is simply impossible to sell that product or service. And any executive that hired more people to produce a product that can't be sold would be out on their ass within a year.

I suspect many wealthy people recognize this and actively lie about it because supply side is good for the rich, the pitiful thing is the non-wealthy conservatives that follow the rich like lapdogs. They do believe in the supply side BS and think it will bring them riches.

[just1voice]

45. I DO NOT have any republican friends

Not a single co-worker/friend either. Besides, any question that involves reality stumps repukes.