Steve Wynn unloads on Obama and explains why there are no jobs.

[FerrelGeek]

Meanwhile, economists point to a lack of demand as opposed to government regulation as the cause for slow business growth.

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpps/c...ehind-weak-hiring-dpgonc-20110718-fc_14178293

Pro-Jo has really gone into overdrive lately. What's sad is that he's taking a page from the Anarchist420 handbook in that he makes a new thread, and then when his point is completely obliterated in it instead of owning up to his mistake, he just abandons it and creates a new one.

There's no demand because businesses are afraid to spend. There's no demand because consumers are afraid / don't have the money to spend. Yes, both points can be elaborated upon, but in essence, it's that simple.

 

[werepossum]

As someone who makes his living as part of a small business that caters to people like Wynn... Obama and this congress scare the shit out of me. They have no interest in fixing this mess. All they want to do is spend more money. Because that's the answer apparently. Fiscal responsibility? What's that?

Shopaholics... Compulsive gamblers... Pick your malady. They burn money and when it's gone they need MORE!!!!... I can't be out of money... I still have checks!!!

Who are we kidding... it's congress... WE STILL HAVE A MINT!!! Hhahahahahaha... Print MORE!!!... Spend spend spend...

Wynn's comments aren't directed at Obama so much as the entire, insane establishment that spends our money with the responsibility and prudence of a meth head with a stolen credit card.

Good post. I would add that in addition to Obama and Congress, major corporations are also afraid of the economy itself taking another nose dive, even if neither Obama nor the House Republicans get their way. But certainly Obama is a major factor.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, this is who we should trust, the owner of a gambling company.

Wait - the immensely wealthy self-made owner of a gambling company is not someone to trust about business, but a community organizer IS?

WTF?

 

[woolfe9999]

Wait - the immensely wealthy self-made owner of a gambling company is not someone to trust about business, but a community organizer IS?

WTF?

I don't know about a community organizer, but I think someone without a vested interest in said business is more trustworthy. Steve Wynn I'm sure knows his business. That doesn't mean we take what he says at face value.

 

[UberNeuman]

I don't know about a community organizer, but I think someone without a vested interest in said business is more trustworthy. Steve Wynn I'm sure knows his business. That doesn't mean we take what he says at face value.

It's got to be a rough life for a guy that poked a hole in a Picasso...

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/steve-wynns-bad-dream

So, where was this "job market" prior to 2008?

\about in the same boat as it is today...
\\making his opinion shit....

 

[Greenman]

As though gambling is anything but the redistribution of wealth.

Quite the contrary, it's the concentration of wealth.

 

[ericlp]

Is there anything anti-Obama that ProJo won't post?

Nope ... He's a typical Bush lover that has never gotten over that the repuk's lost the election.

You know.. I'm for no party but. I admit watching a white middle aged bible thumper like projoe turn all red and cry about how were all gonna go to hell because there church didn't win the election is almost worth it to have the D's win!

Go Obama. haha

 

[ProfJohn]

Nope ... He's a typical Bush lover that has never gotten over that the repuk's lost the election.

You know.. I'm for no party but. I admit watching a white middle aged bible thumper like projoe turn all red and cry about how were all gonna go to hell because there church didn't win the election is almost worth it to have the D's win!

Go Obama. haha

You obviously know nothing about me.

I don't go to church and have never read the bible. I believe in evolution and think the intelligent design thing in science class is stupid.

My concern is more about fiscal conservatism than anything else.

If we follow Obama's ideas on the economy and government we will have less growth, less income and more unemployment. You can't choke the economy by having government suck up all the money. It is that simple.

 

[werepossum]

I don't know about a community organizer, but I think someone without a vested interest in said business is more trustworthy. Steve Wynn I'm sure knows his business. That doesn't mean we take what he says at face value.

When the issue is the business climate, why would a community organizer be more trustworthy? With no vested interest in private sector business - in fact, with a history of referring to the private sector as "the enemy" - he is completely free to intentionally sacrifice jobs for his own interests, which, having as you say no vested interest in private sector business, he considers more important. If you too feel that Obama's interests are worth sacrificing more of the private sector, or that diminishing the private sector is in itself a worthy goal, then Obama is surely your dog in the ongoing race for the prevailing accepted national ethos. If on the other hand you think that the private sector is a good and necessary thing, then Steve Wynn's point is at least worth hearing - although granted, it should not automatically be taken at face value.

 

[GamingDaemon]

Take your rich scarey cat asses and leave the country

Reading through this thread, I picked out this response as one of the, how do I put this nicely, least intelligent responses.

I know nothing about dmcowen674, but here are some facts that I do know:

1) The top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay over 35% of the tax revenue of this country.
2) The top 10% pay almost 50% of the tax revenue
3) Of the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S., only 3% actually pay any federal taxes at all.
4) Back in 1991, after the Dems passed a new tax that increased the taxes paid on items like cars over $30K, yachts over $100K and other "luxury items", the tax revenue fell by $97,000,000.00. Again, this was back in 1991, so that's a lot of revenue lost. The Dems were actually surprised. Not only was tax revenue lost, but many, many people lost their jobs because the "so-called" evil rich people now were buying their cars and yachts elsewhere, fueling the economy of other countries.

Wealth redistribution has been shown not to work over and over again, but your idea, dmcowen674, is perhaps worse than anything any left-wing liberal might propose.

When the rich take their money and leave, who will pay for the government services and entitlements? You? Good luck with that. But I will be moving to where ever the wealthy folks move to... after all, I have never been employed by a poor person.

 

[GamingDaemon]

When the issue is the business climate, why would a community organizer be more trustworthy? With no vested interest in private sector business - in fact, with a history of referring to the private sector as "the enemy" - he is completely free to intentionally sacrifice jobs for his own interests, which, having as you say no vested interest in private sector business, he considers more important. If you too feel that Obama's interests are worth sacrificing more of the private sector, or that diminishing the private sector is in itself a worthy goal, then Obama is surely your dog in the ongoing race for the prevailing accepted national ethos. If on the other hand you think that the private sector is a good and necessary thing, then Steve Wynn's point is at least worth hearing - although granted, it should not automatically be taken at face value.

Couldn't agree with you more. Speaking of climate, Obama's interest in climate change, a.k.a. global warming, was shown to be motivated more by wealth redistribution on a global level when he visited Copenhagen for the climate discussion a few years ago. Not only is succumbing to the authority of a foreign government (the U. N. in this case) against the constitution, it's not what I want my hard-earned tax dollars going toward. Especially when the science of climatology has been tainted so drastically by politics.

November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

 

[fskimospy]

Couldn't agree with you more. Speaking of climate, Obama's interest in climate change, a.k.a. global warming, was shown to be motivated more by wealth redistribution on a global level when he visited Copenhagen for the climate discussion a few years ago. Not only is succumbing to the authority of a foreign government (the U. N. in this case) against the constitution, it's not what I want my hard-earned tax dollars going toward. Especially when the science of climatology has been tainted so drastically by politics.

November 2012 cannot come soon enough.

 

[soundforbjt]

Reading through this thread, I picked out this response as one of the, how do I put this nicely, least intelligent responses.

I know nothing about dmcowen674, but here are some facts that I do know:

1) The top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay over 35% of the tax revenue of this country.
2) The top 10% pay almost 50% of the tax revenue
3) Of the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S., only 3% actually pay any federal taxes at all.
4) Back in 1991, after the Dems passed a new tax that increased the taxes paid on items like cars over $30K, yachts over $100K and other "luxury items", the tax revenue fell by $97,000,000.00. Again, this was back in 1991, so that's a lot of revenue lost. The Dems were actually surprised. Not only was tax revenue lost, but many, many people lost their jobs because the "so-called" evil rich people now were buying their cars and yachts elsewhere, fueling the economy of other countries.

Wealth redistribution has been shown not to work over and over again, but your idea, dmcowen674, is perhaps worse than anything any left-wing liberal might propose.

When the rich take their money and leave, who will pay for the government services and entitlements? You? Good luck with that. But I will be moving to where ever the wealthy folks move to... after all, I have never been employed by a poor person.

The top 20% of this country own 80% of it's wealth. They should be paying the most in taxes, since they own almost everything. The bottom 50% are just trying to survive.

 

[BoberFett]

The top 20% of this country own 80% of it's wealth. They should be paying the most in taxes, since they own almost everything. The bottom 50% are just trying to survive.

Wealth is not taxed.

 

[soundforbjt]

Wealth is not taxed.

And your point is? Their high income allowed them to create that wealth. They earn the most money = they should pay the most taxes.

 

[silverpig]

Wealth is not taxed.

True, but wealth is a good proxy for income.

 

[woolfe9999]

When the issue is the business climate, why would a community organizer be more trustworthy? With no vested interest in private sector business - in fact, with a history of referring to the private sector as "the enemy" - he is completely free to intentionally sacrifice jobs for his own interests, which, having as you say no vested interest in private sector business, he considers more important. If you too feel that Obama's interests are worth sacrificing more of the private sector, or that diminishing the private sector is in itself a worthy goal, then Obama is surely your dog in the ongoing race for the prevailing accepted national ethos. If on the other hand you think that the private sector is a good and necessary thing, then Steve Wynn's point is at least worth hearing - although granted, it should not automatically be taken at face value.

This post is loaded with so much straw I don't even know where to begin. If you look at how I worded my post, you'll see I made no comment about Obama's credibility on business matters. This isn't about Obama's credibility versus Steve Wynn's. This is about Steve Wynn's credibility versus the known evidence of low demand in his market. I am talking about whether we can trust a businessman with a vested pecuniary interest in minimizing regulation when he blames a lack of growth in his business on regulation in a recessionary climate which has hit his locale especially hard. I don't think these kinds of comments can be dismissed out of hand, but I do think the bias of the source must be considered, particularly when the evidence supports another explanation. If Wynn had made this comment in healthy economic times, I'd still harbor some suspicion but would be more inclined to consider its merits.

 

[GamingDaemon]

The top 20% of this country own 80% of it's wealth. They should be paying the most in taxes, since they own almost everything. The bottom 50% are just trying to survive.

If you took all of the wealth of the top 10% wage earners, you *might* be able to pay the *interest* on our debt for a few months.

Please, do not use "should". Let's focus on facts when we discuss such important topics. Fear of Obama's policies are keeping businesses from growing, and the unrelenting spending of Obama's policy is forcing many to devalue the U.S. government.

When more people than ever are unemployed, the U6 number is around 15%, then they cannot pay taxes, and our revenue decreases.

Here's a great idea. Cut spending, reduce regulations, remove obstacles for businesses, and cut corp taxes.

People will be hired, they will buy products and pay taxes.

 

[BoberFett]

And your point is? Their high income allowed them to create that wealth. They earn the most money = they should pay the most taxes.

You said the top 20% hold 80% of the wealth. So what? Income is taxed. If you want to talk about paying taxes, what does wealth have to do with anything?

If we were talking about the best kind of apples for making apple pie, are you going to tell me that you like oranges better?

 

[soundforbjt]

If you took all of the wealth of the top 10% wage earners, you *might* be able to pay the *interest* on our debt for a few months.

Please, do not use "should". Let's focus on facts when we discuss such important topics. Fear of Obama's policies are keeping businesses from growing, and the unrelenting spending of Obama's policy is forcing many to devalue the U.S. government.

When more people than ever are unemployed, the U6 number is around 15%, then they cannot pay taxes, and our revenue decreases.

Here's a great idea. Cut spending, reduce regulations, remove obstacles for businesses, and cut corp taxes.

People will be hired, they will buy products and pay taxes.

38% of corps are paying NO taxes now, some actually get money back and pay a negative tax. What good will lowering their rates do when the largest aren't paying anything now?

Less regulations= more pollution, more hazards for workers, less quality control for the consumer. Sounds great, doesn't it? if you're the corporation.

If by obstacles you mean "red tape", I may agree with you there.

 

[nobodyknows]

LMFAO

This is the best full-court press thread yet. There you have it, the rich are sitting on cash. Fucking imagine that! It's Obama fault, fucking imagine that even more. GAFL.

It's theIr ball and they are going to take it and go home if we don't play by their rules.

 

[nobodyknows]

Reading through this thread, I picked out this response as one of the, how do I put this nicely, least intelligent responses.

I know nothing about dmcowen674, but here are some facts that I do know:

1) The top 1% of the wage earners in this country pay over 35% of the tax revenue of this country.
2) The top 10% pay almost 50% of the tax revenue
3) Of the bottom 50% of wage earners in the U.S., only 3% actually pay any federal taxes at all.
4) Back in 1991, after the Dems passed a new tax that increased the taxes paid on items like cars over $30K, yachts over $100K and other "luxury items", the tax revenue fell by $97,000,000.00. Again, this was back in 1991, so that's a lot of revenue lost. The Dems were actually surprised. Not only was tax revenue lost, but many, many people lost their jobs because the "so-called" evil rich people now were buying their cars and yachts elsewhere, fueling the economy of other countries.

Wealth redistribution has been shown not to work over and over again, but your idea, dmcowen674, is perhaps worse than anything any left-wing liberal might propose.

When the rich take their money and leave, who will pay for the government services and entitlements? You? Good luck with that. But I will be moving to where ever the wealthy folks move to... after all, I have never been employed by a poor person.

I take it your in charge of getting blood out of a rock?

 

[BoberFett]

38% of corps are paying NO taxes now, some actually get money back and pay a negative tax. What good will lowering their rates do when the largest aren't paying anything now?

Less regulations= more pollution, more hazards for workers, less quality control for the consumer. Sounds great, doesn't it? if you're the corporation.

If by obstacles you mean "red tape", I may agree with you there.

Companies avoiding taxes? You mean like GE and their tax credits for being "green"? GE who's CEO is best buds with Obama?

Yeah, clearly this is all the fault of Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/jon-stewart-ge-taxes-video_n_841835.html

 

[soundforbjt]

Companies avoiding taxes? You mean like GE and their tax credits for being "green"? GE who's CEO is best buds with Obama?

Yeah, clearly this is all the fault of Republicans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/29/jon-stewart-ge-taxes-video_n_841835.html

GE is one of the evil tax dodging corps, yes. Just because they support dems doesn't mean I think they should be getting a free ride on taxes.

 

[ayabe]

If you took all of the wealth of the top 10% wage earners, you *might* be able to pay the *interest* on our debt for a few months.

And what? No one is talking about that so this is meaningless, just as it is every other time it's uttered. If I'm paying 29% of my income to the man, then some guy making $5,000,000 a year ought to be paying that 29% as well, regardless of whether his 29% is bigger than mine.

Please, do not use "should". Let's focus on facts when we discuss such important topics. Fear of Obama's policies are keeping businesses from growing, and the unrelenting spending of Obama's policy is forcing many to devalue the U.S. government.

People who study this for a living do not agree with you.

When more people than ever are unemployed, the U6 number is around 15%, then they cannot pay taxes, and our revenue decreases.

Yes?

Here's a great idea. Cut spending, reduce regulations, remove obstacles for businesses, and cut corp taxes.

People will be hired, they will buy products and pay taxes.

What regulations? Be specific or be quiet about it.

Government spending also buys products and enables people to pay taxes. This sense that government spending just throws cash into the fire where it disappears forever is a joke. It's paying some company for a service, it's paying the salary of some Gubment employee, allowing him to take his family to Disney, go out to eat, buy a house, and yes even pay his taxes.