Funny political pictures

[Lamplighter]

And the tweet goes on...Romney's to Big Bird threat still has legs a week later...



"Big Bird, welcome to the middle class"

"Big Bird, one more of Romney's 47%"

“[Romney] is getting tough on Big Bird.
Wall Street can run wild again, but he’s bringing the hammer down on Sesame Street.”

But when asked to comment, Big Bird said he didn't want to "ruffle any feathers.

[piercehawkeye45]

Homeless Sesame Street characters would be good Halloween costumes.

[Spexxvet]

sad

[infinite monkey]

...

[infinite monkey]

.

[ZenGum]

[DanaC]

Ha! Those last few are brilliant.

Particularly like the 'Giving more money to the rich didn't work...' one. It seems to pretty much sum up Adak's economic arguments in the other thread. And most of the conservative pundits I've heard.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Damn ager...

[Ibby]

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Particularly like the 'Giving more money to the rich didn't work...' one. It seems to pretty much sum up Adak's economic arguments in the other thread.

He also ignores history. Jobs were created when the rich were properly taxed. Jobs creation stopped when government gave welfare to the rich. At what point does he first learn history before advancing that myth? Oh. Limbaugh said tax cuts to the rich create jobs. That rhetoric alone proves it.

Ideologues hate facts, numbers, lessons from history, and reality. 'Conservative' principles prove everything. Extremism in the name of liberty is no vice.

[ZenGum]

Please illustrate those points with a funny picture.

[ZenGum]

[infinite monkey]

^

[infinite monkey]

.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by tw

Jobs were created when the rich were properly taxed. Jobs creation stopped when government gave welfare to the rich.

Piggy-backing off this a bit...


So, in essence, if business owners wanted to be richer, they had to make more money. To make more money, they had to grow their business (or sell it at a profit and start another). To grow the business, they had to drum up/better meet demand and increase deliverables while minimizing receivables. To do all that, they need a workforce that will, for whatever reason (as far as they're concerned), come to work everyday and not waste company time/resources. Doing all of this takes time, money and energy. The motivation for doing all this would be the increased ROI. Increased ROI means the business owner gets richer.

If business owners are able to get more R for less I, they will. They definitely will because it's less expenditure. The extra R can come from lots of places, from savings realized by automating a process, from tax breaks, from outside investors being impressed by your latest product. Less expenditure means more money doesn't leave them/the business and they stay rich for longer or get rich sooner. There's no motivation to add more jobs because personal and business profit would be growing without it.

Also, adding more jobs when there isn't more work to be done means you get more work created (to justify paying more workers) and an increase of deliverables, which can mean an increase of receivables (which may or may not cost more money). Increased deliverables still need to be sold and if you saturate the market and the demand isn't there, you drive price down and that can backfire on you (and all your competitors). And they don't want that either. And since a black-inked balance sheet and a graph showing a steady upwards creep on the profit over time axes are the engine of a business, why change it?

And that's just the business side. The consumer side deals with the same situation, with just a slightly different flavor. Both need the other to prosper and when one side is favored the other will suffer. What is a boon to one will make the other go bust. Need balance.