Tea Party blog calls for Job Creator! Strike

[trenchfoot]

Wow, that's some pretty intense koolaid you're drinking.

He don't drink it, he snorts it straight out of the can while it's still in crystalline form like that guy did in an episode of Jackasses. Chase the rush man, chase the rush.:biggrin:

 

[JSt0rm]

It's to send a message to democrats and this president that support for such socialist ideals is NOT to be, nor WILL be tolerated. You still don't get it. If Obama and dems come out and denounce the marxists then embargo off. Until then, embargo ON!

Who run barter town? Tea Party Patriots run barter town.

I hope you realize that for every person who decides to stop making money 10 will try in his/her place. This is the functional part of capitalism.

 

[cubby1223]

Somehow, I just knew you'd approve of more hostage taking.

It's really quite shameful. Confronted with reasons to hire more people to meet demand to make more money, those who could hire say they won't for purely political reasons, contradicting their own claims wrt uncertainty, regulation, taxes and the rest.

What they're telling us is that they already have plenty of money & that none of their claims are valid at all. I got mine, so screw you!

Not that our resident Tea Party poster child can see past the blinding zeal of his own position, or ever will.

And the protesters, confronted with reasons to seek and obtain a job, or create a job for themselves, instead take to the streets bitching and moaning that it is the responsibility of other people to provide for them.

All we really have here is a conflict between those who understand how the real world works, and those who don't understand how the real world works.

 

[Jhhnn]

And the protesters, confronted with reasons to seek and obtain a job, or create a job for themselves, instead take to the streets bitching and moaning that it is the responsibility of other people to provide for them.

All we really have here is a conflict between those who understand how the real world works, and those who don't understand how the real world works.

Once again, we encounter the will to believe... in bullshit.

OWS demographics-

http://www.****************/1789018/occupy-wall-street-demographics-statistics

Righties believe what they want to believe so as to maintain their defective worldview.

I don't know why I can't paste a direct link to fastcompanydotcom

 

[jackstar7]

All we really have here is a conflict between those who understand how the real world works, and those who don't understand how the real world works.

...and those who want to change how the real world works so it isn't a constant tag-team double-dicking in all holes.

 

[Jhhnn]

...and those who want to change how the real world works so it isn't a constant tag-team double-dicking in all holes.

You're supposed to worship your rapists, so maybe someday you'll get to be one of them!

 

[SamurAchzar]

Who's the rapist, Jhhnn? Those who keep working despite being billionaires and create more wealth, more technology and better lives to all of us, or the tiny, insignificant humans who cling on them for their dear lives, sucking their money dry and demanding even more?

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Who's the rapist, Jhhnn? Those who keep working despite being billionaires and create more wealth, more technology and better lives to all of us, or the tiny, insignificant humans who cling on them for their dear lives, sucking their money dry and demanding even more?

the job problems aren't from a lack of rich its from a lack of demand. The bottoms falling out of this country and it's only getting worse.

 

[Jhhnn]

Who's the rapist, Jhhnn? Those who keep working despite being billionaires and create more wealth, more technology and better lives to all of us, or the tiny, insignificant humans who cling on them for their dear lives, sucking their money dry and demanding even more?

Nice spin. I'd expect nothing less from a trained Israeli operative.

Obviously, if billionaires were being sucked dry, they wouldn't be billionaires, and the top 400 tax filers in this country wouldn't be paying <17% in federal taxes on incomes that average >$1M/day.

So you're saying that synthetic derivative traders, hedge funds, private equity buyouts & so forth actually create wealth rather than just moving it around? Really? What do they create?

 

[SamurAchzar]

Nice spin. I'd expect nothing less from a trained Israeli operative.

Israel is well aware that once American economy collapses, there'll be no one to count on. This is why it's imperative, by the orders of the Elders of Zion, that the US doesn't go bankrupt. Operation "Star of David" instructs us Hasbara agents to protect American economy from sabotage attempts by the progressives and marxists.

Obviously, if billionaires were being sucked dry, they wouldn't be billionaires, and the top 400 tax filers in this country wouldn't be paying <17&#37; in federal taxes on incomes that average >$1M/day.

I don't understand, the existence of billionaires indicates, to you, that US is under-collecting taxes? I'm at loss of words here.

So you're saying that synthetic derivative traders, hedge funds, private equity buyouts & so forth actually create wealth rather than just moving it around? Really? What do they create?

They fill a market function or else they would cease to exist. They have a product people want; the products they sell have real uses, like CDS bonds that are used to hedge risks and insure oneself. As long as they are not in violation of SEC regulations or any other laws, I don't see any problem with them.

Perhaps instead of asking the government to regulate our entire life and cut us loose from any burden of financial responsibility, people would actually educate themselves as to how their money is invested, where and by whom. Then we wouldn't get banks collapsing, taking public savings along or putting the tab up for FDIC to pick up.

But then, obviously, people would have to THINK. And there is no reason to demand people to do THAT when the government can assume complete control of all that's important, fund them off the tit of the entrepreneurs and leave them with no responsibility whatsoever.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't understand, the existence of billionaires indicates, to you, that US is under-collecting taxes? I'm at loss of words here.

You're just being deliberately obtuse, trying to sidestep your previous remarks about insignificant humans sucking the financial elite dry.

They fill a market function or else they would cease to exist. They have a product people want; the products they sell have real uses, like CDS bonds that are used to hedge risks and insure oneself. As long as they are not in violation of SEC regulations or any other laws, I don't see any problem with them.

Perhaps instead of asking the government to regulate our entire life and cut us loose from any burden of financial responsibility, people would actually educate themselves as to how their money is invested, where and by whom. Then we wouldn't get banks collapsing, taking public savings along or putting the tab up for FDIC to pick up.

But then, obviously, people would have to THINK. And there is no reason to demand people to do THAT when the government can assume complete control of all that's important, fund them off the tit of the entrepreneurs and leave them with no responsibility whatsoever.

In other words, you're offering up obfuscations and diversions with a great deal of innuendo and hyperbole. You offer up asset based CDS when I specifically referenced synthetic CDS, for example, so you clearly understand the difference.

The beauty of a term like "market function" is that it's so broad as to cover mechanisms that don't create wealth at all, but rather just move it around or actually destroy it. Looting is a market function, too, like this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

 

[SamurAchzar]

In other words, you're offering up obfuscations and diversions with a great deal of innuendo and hyperbole. You offer up asset based CDS when I specifically referenced synthetic CDS, for example, so you clearly understand the difference.

What's considered "synthetic CDS"? If I am a foreign citizen selling my products in USD, and I buy a CDS on US economy, is this legit or not? For as long as a CDS is underwritten, there's someone on the other side expecting to make money. There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong with that.

The beauty of a term like "market function" is that it's so broad as to cover mechanisms that don't create wealth at all, but rather just move it around or actually destroy it. Looting is a market function, too, like this-

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/business/economy/05simmons.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th

Of course, this is a part of the free market. This is like free speech: I'm not supportive of everything said, but I am supportive of people's right to say it. My attitude towards dealings in private property is all the same.

 

[Jhhnn]

What's considered "synthetic CDS"? If I am a foreign citizen selling my products in USD, and I buy a CDS on US economy, is this legit or not? For as long as a CDS is underwritten, there's someone on the other side expecting to make money. There is absolutely nothing immoral or wrong with that.

As you know, synthetic CDS do not protect a real world position, but are rather pure gambling. They enable conflicts of interest, like creating MBS that are doomed to failure, selling them out the front door to investors while betting heavily against them out the back door. There is no legitimate insurable interest, and it's a zero-sum game.

http://blogs.ft.com/maverecon/2009/03/should-you-be-able-to-sell-what-you-do-not-own/#axzz1bGr1MmFf

Of course, this is a part of the free market. This is like free speech: I'm not supportive of everything said, but I am supportive of people's right to say it. My attitude towards dealings in private property is all the same.

In other words, those market strategies don't create wealth at all, as you originally claimed, but just move it from one place to another, often from the pockets of many have-nots into the pockets of a very few have-a-lots.

It's perfectly reasonable for society to outlaw financial practices that do not serve the purposes of wealth creation, and that are, in fact, designed as exploitation and deception in pursuit of financial gain. Just because it's "free" doesn't mean it's acceptable in a market system, because other people depend on the markets and institutions involved. The necessity of bailing out the big banks tells us that.

 

[SamurAchzar]

It's perfectly reasonable for society to outlaw financial practices that do not serve the purposes of wealth creation, and that are, in fact, designed as exploitation and deception in pursuit of financial gain. Just because it's "free" doesn't mean it's acceptable in a market system, because other people depend on the markets and institutions involved. The necessity of bailing out the big banks tells us that.

The question is, who was exploited, who was deceived? Is this a case of fraud, or is this a case of one side of the deal taking a hit after his speculation failed?

 

[Jhhnn]

The question is, who was exploited, who was deceived? Is this a case of fraud, or is this a case of one side of the deal taking a hit after his speculation failed?

I already offered how synthetic CDS are used in a deceitful manner.

And I already offered how naked gambling by financial institutions is detrimental the markets in general.

 

[Ichigo]

I already offered how synthetic CDS are used in a deceitful manner.

And I already offered how naked gambling by financial institutions is detrimental the markets in general.

I had this exact debate a week ago and it fucked my brain how, once they realized their "create wealth" argument failed for these parties, they kept trying to blow smoke up my ass.

It's not worth talking to these people.

 

[SamurAchzar]

I already offered how synthetic CDS are used in a deceitful manner.

And I already offered how naked gambling by financial institutions is detrimental the markets in general.

Anything can be used in a deceitful manner. This is a very weak argument.

I had this exact debate a week ago and it fucked my brain how, once they realized their "create wealth" argument failed for these parties, they kept trying to blow smoke up my ass.

It's not worth talking to these people.

It does indeed seem your brain has been fucked. Nevertheless, one's economic freedom should not be tied to if he's beneficial to society, just like free speech isn't. It seems like this concept went past right your head; no one owes you a flying fuck. If someone wants to torch down their profitable business, it's their call; if they, like in the example of Simmons brought by Jhhnn, they want to buy a successful business and torch it down, then as far as they, I and the property rights of the individual are concerned you can go fuck yourself.

Now, hippie, lets consider the facts: the vast majority of the People's Enemies in the 1&#37; have not reached their position by destroying wealth, but by creating it. Feel free to stress your mental capacity and scan the list of Forbes 400, then tell us which of those qualifies as a wealth destroyer.

 

[jackstar7]

Am I understanding that stealing is considered part of a free-market system that should simply be accounted for and effectively protected?

That's how it reads here.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Am I understanding that stealing is considered part of a free-market system that should simply be accounted for and effectively protected?

That's how it reads here.

Who is stealing?

 

[jackstar7]

Who is stealing?

I'm sure no one. I'm sure no one is operating more complex schemes on larger scales hidden between lines of code and clauses of contracts within the slow moving world of financial tools management. I'm sure Bernie Madoff was the only thief operating in the financial world. And we caught him. So we know the system is great. Better than great. Totally secure.

 

[Jhhnn]

Anything can be used in a deceitful manner. This is a very weak argument.

Other than gambling with other people's money, neither you nor anybody else has shown synthetic CDS to have any legitimate market function. They're certainly not agents for the creation of wealth, but rather agents of increased systemic risk. In 2008, all the big players depended on the others being able to pay on their losers, but nobody had the liquidity to do it, so the whole system locked up, threatening legitimate banking operations. Even after the bailout, no new wealth had been created as a result, just moved around in circles between winners and losers.

Which doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand. Ain't it grand how the Tea Party faults Obama over job creation, then vows to not create jobs because they want him to fail so badly that they'll deliberately hold down the economy, pass up money making opportunities to do it?

Really special, huh?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Anything can be used in a deceitful manner. This is a very weak argument.



It does indeed seem your brain has been fucked. Nevertheless, one's economic freedom should not be tied to if he's beneficial to society, just like free speech isn't. It seems like this concept went past right your head; no one owes you a flying fuck. If someone wants to torch down their profitable business, it's their call; if they, like in the example of Simmons brought by Jhhnn, they want to buy a successful business and torch it down, then as far as they, I and the property rights of the individual are concerned you can go fuck yourself.

Now, hippie, lets consider the facts: the vast majority of the People's Enemies in the 1% have not reached their position by destroying wealth, but by creating it. Feel free to stress your mental capacity and scan the list of Forbes 400, then tell us which of those qualifies as a wealth destroyer.

Really? That top 1% ALL started form nothing to get there? That having wealth and power doesnt give you "freedoms" the 99% dont have?

I dont think you understand what the FREE in free market means.

Im sorry, remind me again how many lobbyists I can afford to send to Washington to influence the laws and regulations of the land to my personal benefit but not yours?

FUcked over indeed.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Other than gambling with other people's money, neither you nor anybody else has shown synthetic CDS to have any legitimate market function. They're certainly not agents for the creation of wealth, but rather agents of increased systemic risk. In 2008, all the big players depended on the others being able to pay on their losers, but nobody had the liquidity to do it, so the whole system locked up, threatening legitimate banking operations. Even after the bailout, no new wealth had been created as a result, just moved around in circles between winners and losers.

Which doesn't really have much to do with the topic at hand. Ain't it grand how the Tea Party faults Obama over job creation, then vows to not create jobs because they want him to fail so badly that they'll deliberately hold down the economy, pass up money making opportunities to do it?

Really special, huh?

Let me add...these folks all love the free market and all the magical benefits it brings.

So where are the jobs? WHy are we expecting a President to fill this role? SHouldnt it be the free market's?

 

[Jhhnn]

I just thought it'd only be right to let Stephen Colbert have his say on the whole thing-

http://www.hulu.com/watch/291888/th...dge-and-spirit-airlines-ad-revenue#s-p1-sr-i1

 

[IndyColtsFan]

LMAO!!! Spidey plays you guys like a fine tuned fiddle.

I have to admit, I do enjoy Spidey's crazy posts and get a good laugh at all the lefties falling all over themselves bashing him. I especially enjoy his "WE THE PEOPLE" posts and the responses he gets.

This stuff is great comedy!