When you hear bad news (propaganda) in this era, you have to start to think; 'what is that information going to cause?'. By doing the wrong things or by doing nothing will cause change anyway, both can be revolutionary acts. The next president can become very popular by the bad sixteen years of Bush and Obama, because this era (since y2k) in history is about populism once again (history repeats always, except when people understand how they are organised) There will be no news or politics before 2016 that will cause the reversal of the organisation that happened over the last thirteen years. Because change in organisation will cause the next historical period, so you have to slow that process down (to prevent a repeat of history) The only way is to understand how a group of people is organized. There are three ways, by fear (terror), by politics (parties) or by a revolution (protest) What more could artificially organize a population than terror, politics or a revolution?
Reading the various debates I can verify that the source from the BLS and CBO has been provided over and over again. But hold it for a moment, if these numbers were indeed true, what would you then say? Would it make any difference to your thinking on these matters?
Government intervention has never kicked the economy into a recovery, even Bush found that out with his first action in the slowdown/recession he inherited and the $600 advance to every taxpayer and phased in tax cuts. It was after the speed up the phase in of the tax cuts that the economy took off. The markets will correct themselves as the people who know how to run them take the corrective actions.
Are you suggesting the government should have cut taxes, cut spending and let the economy correct itself that way? And that doing so would not have allowed the economy to fully collapse? My statement was that government spending props up the economy when consumer/business spending cannot. Without doing so I believe we would have faced catastrophe. The true problem we face is a choked lower and middle class due to household debt. People are at the end of their credit ropes so their incomes have been gobbled up just to service their debt interest. Without those dollars going to real goods and services month to month, single injections of money like Bush's check that we got are meaningless because they do not create long term demand. We need our people who spend the majority of what they earn to be able to do so, but they're today giving it to banks in interest instead of buying goods and services. I'm not sure how we get rid of that burden without a huge intervention and we'll only have mediocre outcomes from anything we try until we un-burden our "spending" class of people in a way that does not allow them to get right back into the hole of debt they already got themselves into. It's a huge problem, worse in some European countries like Britain, and at some point it has to be faced even to the disdain of those who lived right and kept themselves out of debt.
Ah so you dont approve of tax cuts now as a boost to the economy now? Just want to be clear where you come from.
Wrong my business was up 36% last year but the cost of employees is going up and there is HUGE uncertainty how high it will go, I wish my company would hire more but too much in the balance.
Putting aside the anecdote isn't evidence error, I'm sure your competitors will be happy to take your business while you wait.
Indeed its huge problem and worse in the UK, but its worse here because we've been trying this austerity thing. Austerity has no historical foundations to it whatsoever. Its a collossal failure, that keeps getting re-gurgitated by the right over and over again. It doesnt work for the simple reason that government spending does not crowd out private sector investment.
Refuted your phony use of them repeatedly. And if you are going post numbers then do so vis-a-vis what I say or ask. Me "kept the GDP up" You "Kept the spending up"? Exactly how much less spending is the government doing now compared to 2007 when we had strong GDP? Actually dollars.
congress Makes all laws and thereby controlling any spending Which will have a great impact on any of the president's economic policy But it is all the presidents responsibility More conservative logic Remember many republican leaders have stated their main priority is to obstruct The president When their main priority should be to make things better for the country
I wish more people would understand how true this is. This President has made doing business in this country almost unaffordable for small business. Add to the uncertainty he creates for the markets and people are afraid to risk assets. Then add to that companies are trying to get lean and financially sound in preparation for the next move out of Washington and you have what we see. A slow moving economy with very slow if any growth. Get Obama out of business and I promise our economy recovers and jobs would be created.
Really? I also have the demand to warrant the hiring of three people, etc etc blah blah - - - Updated - - - What specific Obamas would you like to see out? Lemme guess, healthcare right? The same healthcare that wasnt in effect til recently. God the holes in these arguments are getting so boring.
RFOL you've never "refuted" the numbers ever. My numbers come straight from the BLS and CBO. I've posted the links several times. Tell us. - - - Updated - - - Tell me exactly how he made it unaffordable. Last I heard there were lots of small businesses operating in the US. You mean like the last Republican president?
Healthcare was passed in 2010. Per Nancy's own admission we didn't know what was in it until it was passed. So this law has been a concern since it passed, not just recently. There are all regulations that drive up business cost and has been constant tax code changes keeping my CPA quite busy. All this comes at a price. My latest I get to meet my CPA about has something about new tax laws concerning capital equipment deductions I believe.
Truly and absolutely. I am not sure why liberals, when confronted with real life instances that refute their imaginary paradigm of how the business world works do not begin to ask, "Could there be something outside my belief system that is true?"
I'm not sure why conservatives because they spout some claim on the internet seem to think it counts as statistical evidence.
I really don't care to debate these specifics. It is my opinion based on what I see. The evidence is also in the business world if you dive deep into it not just look at stock markets and news outlets. And yes some business are doing great, I own one. Some are also out of business, I closed one in 2010.
Not so much. They are just as busy and they aren't hiring either. They are smart that way, beings how they survived five years with Obama as President, and all.
It is just evidence, not necessarily statistical. However, is there a point when enough anecdotal evidence piles up to be convincing? I continually hear people who own businesses on this forum say thing that match my own experiences concerning the small business climate under Obama, and I continually hear from people who do not run a business, never have run a business, and lack the skills to ever run a business successfully tell us how good things are for business owners. Who do you think a wise person would believe?
Do you really think a judgement can be made on the basis of your summation of anecdotes rather than data? really?
Regarding rooting for America's failure: Why do so many people from the right jump at the chance to report "more bad news for the economy"? I think that it's when the hate for Obama is stronger than the love for America.
