Interchangeable carbon blobs. Only 1% generate any wealth.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@RickJay

That’s all great but the fact remains the truck driver is creating wealth. All work creates wealth, unless your work is along the lines of being some sort of evil genius destroying Gotham.

I wonder how big a crustal displacement Earth will suffer if he realizes he’s making the same point I am… :eek:

[Le_Jacquelope]

@Enderw24

You seem to be confusing the words “interchangeable” with “expendable”
They’re not the same.

When coupled with the statement “only 1% of people generate wealth”, the confusion of interchangeability with expendability is not my mistake, it’s msmith’s mistake.

Absolutely everyone is interchangeable. Even if we lost Bill Gates as a kid we’d still have Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs to take up the slack.

[Le_Jacquelope]

@New_Deal_Democrat

Unfortunately, the rich are not creating very many jobs. Right now they are getting richer by killing jobs.

You are in violation of the Economic Thought Rectification Act of 2011.

There is no such thing as ‘killing jobs’. There is only “right sizing” and “reallocation of labor”.

</satire>

[New_Deal_Democrat]

@Le_Jacquelope

You are in violation of the Economic Thought Rectification Act of 2011.

There is no such thing as ‘killing jobs’. There is only “right sizing” and “reallocation of labor”.

</satire>

The rich are getting richer by making everyone else poorer. Who gets blamed? President Obama. Obama has been a disappointment to me. I want someone who can out think and out maneuver the Republicans the way Franklin Roosevelt did. I would rather have Obama than any Republican, though.

[msmith537]

@Le_Jacquelope

When coupled with the statement “only 1% of people generate wealth”, the confusion of interchangeability with expendability is not my mistake, it’s msmith’s mistake.

No, I think we are all pretty sure it’s your mistake.

[emacknight]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The rich are getting richer by making everyone else poorer. Who gets blamed? President Obama. Obama has been a disappointment to me. I want someone who can out think and out maneuver the Republicans the way Franklin Roosevelt did. I would rather have Obama than any Republican, though.

To use a statement like “the rich are getting richer by killing jobs” implies two things:

1. The rich were the ones creating jobs in the first place.
2. The poor are entirely dependent on the rich for those jobs.

No, remember first that the “1% generating [significant] wealth” are not the same as the “1% currently with all the wealth.”

If “the rich” are killing jobs, why? How is it that the rich are in control of the jobs in the first place to be able to kill them?

Secondly, what would you propose to stop/discourage the rich from killing jobs?

You made the statement, “Unfortunately, the rich are not creating very many jobs. Right now they are getting richer by killing jobs.”

It’s now up to you to back that up, or admit it was nothing more than rhetoric.

[elucidator]

I killed a mosquito once. I didn’t create the mosquito.

[emacknight]

@elucidator

I killed a mosquito once. I didn’t create the mosquito.

Thank you for letting us know. I was just about to PM you to ask.

[gonzomax]

@Sam_Stone

I think gonzo is talking about Frank Luntz, a Republican polling expert and political consultant, who advises people on the power of words to shape polls and narrative. In gonzo’s world, only Republicans try to shape narratives or use language designed to sell candidates and programs rather than being perfectly descriptive.

Luntz will tell you that the two following questions will return very different poll results:

1. Do you favor tax increases on the wealthy?
2. Do you favor tax increases on job creators?

If you can shape the language of the debate, you can change attitudes or skew poll results to your advantage. For example, you could call a “tax increase” something like “reducing spending in the tax code.”

.

Yep it is Luntz.Sorry. He came up with death tax to reframe inheritance tax. I had a handout he gave to Repub politicians telling them what terms to use in public and during debate. He is thorough. Fox TV uses his terminology.

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

Yep it is Luntz.Sorry. He came up with death tax to reframe inheritance tax. I had a handout he gave to Repub politicians telling them what terms to use in public and during debate. He is thorough. Fox TV uses his terminology.

If it works why doesn’t the left do the same thing?

[gonzomax]

@emacknight

If it works why doesn’t the left do the same thing?

Beats the hell out of me. Perhaps they think propagandizing is wrong?

[gonzomax]

Frank Luntz Pens Memo To Kill Financial Regulatory Reform | HuffPost Latest News Here is an example of his thinking. Simply referring to small business as “small business owners”, personifies it.

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

Beats the hell out of me. Perhaps they think propagandizing is wrong?

So now what you’re saying is that it’s propagandizing , and it’s wrong?

What does that say about everyone who votes Republican?

[Sam_Stone]

Did you miss my point that the left DOES do this? What the hell do you think James Carville and Paul Begala get hired to do? Or Pat Cadell, or…

“Reducing spending in the tax code” as a euphemism for ‘raising takes’ was a line from an Obama speech, probably inserted by a guy just like Luntz.

[elucidator]

Carville? Just another pretty face.

[emacknight]

@elucidator

Carville? Just another pretty face.

I wonder if he’s killed any mosquitoes, have you asked him?

[Le_Jacquelope]

@New_Deal_Democrat

The rich are getting richer by making everyone else poorer. Who gets blamed? President Obama. Obama has been a disappointment to me. I want someone who can out think and out maneuver the Republicans the way Franklin Roosevelt did. I would rather have Obama than any Republican, though.

Pretty much. Obama lacks a spine, seriously.

What we need is more than Franklin Roosevelt. We need a seance to bring back the spirit of Theodore Roosevelt. Look at his history, and what he did… the Republican Party would call him a Communist for what he did with the Square Deal. Union bosses as equals with corporate bosses? Woah. He wouldn’t tolerate the Tea Party, not one bit. Or the banksters. Especially not the banksters.

@msmith537

No, I think we are all pretty sure it’s your mistake.

There you go again with appealing to popularity. Who’s this “we all”, anyway?

It’s your mistake. You are the one who said only 1 in 100 people produce wealth. That implies expendability for the other 99%. If only 1 out of 100 people generate wealth and the other 99 people disappear, going by your rabidly insane logic, wealth is still being generated.

[elucidator]

@emacknight

I wonder if he’s killed any mosquitoes, have you asked him?

Seriously? You don’t get it? OK, I’ll dial it down a little.

You said:

To use a statement like “the rich are getting richer by killing jobs” implies two things:

1. The rich were the ones creating jobs in the first place…

My response points out that it is entirely possible to destroy and/or kill something one had no hand in creating, whatsoever. Does that help? Don’t be afraid to ask, that’s what we’re here for. Well, some of us…

[gonzomax]

International corporate heads did not invent corporations. They got on top of an existing conglomerate. Then they saw they could make even more money by outsourcing jobs and industries. Do you believe they did not know it would harm America and its workers? Do you think they did not know it would undermine our tax base?
Cutting wages for Americans was not serendipity. It was a deliberate plan. It decreases costs and increases profits. That means bigger bonuses and retirement packages for those on top. It is perfectly logical if you do not believe the impact on America and its workers should be a consideration.
Americanism is for fools. Those on top do not care about it at all. The poor can not afford it.

[emacknight]

@elucidator

Seriously? You don’t get it? OK, I’ll dial it down a little.

You might want to dial it down a lot since you missed several key posts. For example:

@New_Deal_Democrat

Unfortunately, the rich are not creating very many jobs. Right now they are getting richer by killing jobs.

Notice the way New Deal Democrat first says “not very many.” Which is why I asked for clarification. What does that statement mean? Do they normally create many jobs?

Then he/she said:

@New_Deal_Democrat

The rich are getting richer by making everyone else poorer.

To which I asked:

@emacknight

To use a statement like “the rich are getting richer by killing jobs” implies two things:

1. The rich were the ones creating jobs in the first place.
2. The poor are entirely dependent on the rich for those jobs.

No, remember first that the “1% generating [significant] wealth” are not the same as the “1% currently with all the wealth.”

If “the rich” are killing jobs, why? How is it that the rich are in control of the jobs in the first place to be able to kill them?

Secondly, what would you propose to stop/discourage the rich from killing jobs?

You made the statement, “Unfortunately, the rich are not creating very many jobs. Right now they are getting richer by killing jobs.”

It’s now up to you to back that up, or admit it was nothing more than rhetoric.

And for some reason you told us about a mosquito.

@elucidator

My response points out that it is entirely possible to destroy and/or kill something one had no hand in creating, whatsoever. Does that help? Don’t be afraid to ask, that’s what we’re here for. Well, some of us…

So yes, it is possible to destroy something without having created it. Is that was New Deal Democrat was referring to?

Since you are so wise, perhaps you could tell us who “created” those jobs that “the rich” are “killing.”