Are republicans hopelessly stuck in the 80's because of their undying love of Reagan?

[Dad2three]

Barack Obama has turned out to be an incompetent disaster as President and it's become SO bad at this point that the only thing you liberals can think of is to attack every Republican President for the past fifty years to try and make them look as bad as Barry!

Conservatives choose to ignore facts and reality and live in a right wing world of delusion and disconnect created by the right wing echo chamber of spin, lies and misinformation.





If Obama implements a growth policy on Tuesday and the nation is not back in the black on Thursday, this is a "failed policy."

If Bush in eight years brings us from surplus to crushing deficit, rampant unemployment, an economic black hole, a) his policies just "needed more time to work," and b) it was all Barney Franks' fault. If Obama in 6 years, with no economic engine left to work with and a 100% obstructionist congress opposing him at every turn recovers the stock market, reverses the unemployment trend, restores growth and puts the nation back on sound economic footing, but we're not as well off as at the end of the Clinton presidency, these are "failed policies."

You can't make this stuff up.

Who's living in a "world of delusion", Dad...those who recognize all of the good things that a Ronald Reagan did for the United States...or those who pretend that Barack Obama is competent after six years of "leading from behind"?

The truth is...Barack Obama has overseen the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression. His POLICIES are what have held back that recovery. Job growth is strongest in States primarily led by Republican Governors espousing policies that contradict the President's. The stock market bubble has been fueled by non-stop quantitative easing by the Fed in an attempt to keep the economy from going back into recession due to a total lack of an economic plan from this President to create jobs and grow the economy. There are still millions of Americans on long term unemployment six YEARS after Barack Obama took office and he has no plan to put them back to work. We were "well off" in the Clinton Presidency because of the Dot Com Boom. That was coming to an end before Clinton left office. This liberal "fantasy" that Slick Willie created the prosperity back then by raising taxes is one of the more naive beliefs on this board.

MORE right wing garbage. I'm shocked

You mean the recession Dubya/GOP policy took US too? The one where he gutted regulators and cheered on the Banksters?

You mean states dependent on ENERGY are booming and states that depended on Dubya's housing bubble are slow to come out of Dubya's recession AFTER he allowed household debt to double the first 7 years?


Dubya LOST 1,000,00+ PRIVATE sector jobs in 8 years with his 'job creator' policies

NOT counting the 4+ million lost in 2009

OBAMA HAS A NET OF NEARLY 7 MILLION IN LESS THAN 6 YEARS

Bureau of Labor Statistics Data

Dubya SAVAGED the treasury with 2 UNFUNDED tax cuts (you cut spending!!!), 2 UNFUNDED wars (you get new revenues) AND UNFUNDED Medicare expansion, taking US from 20%+ to less than 15% of GDP, Obama has done a fukking miracle considering the hole Dubya left US in and the unwillingness of the GOP to help US for 6 years!!!

No, BJ Bill just was the best FISCALLY conservative Prez since Ike, looks like Obama comes in second place

AFTER BILL's first surplus what did the GOP do? Of course they passed a $700+ billion tax cut he had to veto to get 3 more!!!

"The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that. [He] did something about it, fast. And I think we are seeing some benefits." — Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Board Chairman (1979-1987), in Audacity, Fall 1994


"Clinton’s 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity." — Business Week, May 19, 1997

No, BJ Bill just was the best FISCALLY conservative Prez since Ike, looks like Obama comes in second place

He found that working with the republican congress worked out fairly well.

Question who has the purse strings,the pres or the house.

Its a hoot when hacks like this one,quote wishful numbers as truths,last week it was 10 million jobs that have been created by Obama,this week it 8 mill .

There was no real surplus,another talking point repeated

The US enjoyed the second longest economic expansion in our history under Bush,saying other wise is just false.

The same question that all lefties seem to want to pass.Which tax bracket enjoyed the largest tax relief from the bush cuts??

Sure, it was 'working with them' that got US 20%+ of GDP in revenues and 4 surpluses, must've been why Gov't was shut down twice and BJ Bill impeached!

Which policy is more important, Prez or Congress? We saw that AFTER Clinton's first surplus the GOP passed a $700+ billion tax cut Bill had to veto to get 3 more SURPLUSES (more money coming in than going out)


Obama has 10+ million PRIVATE sector jobs under him since Obamacares passed Feb 2010, for a net of nearly 7 million (it will be in a few days) since he came into office


Bureau of Labor Statistics Data


Q: During the Clinton administration was the federal budget balanced? Was the federal deficit erased?

A: Yes to both questions, whether you count Social Security or not.

The Budget and Deficit Under Clinton


Weird, you saying Dubya had growth? Oh you mean that ponzi scheme where he gutted regulators and cheered on the Banksters? How did that turn out? lol


Dec 2007 (pre Dubya's recession)

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush

The next president will have to deal with yet another crippling legacy of George W. Bush: the economy. A Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz, sees a generation-long struggle to recoup.

The Economic Consequences of Mr. Bush Vanity Fair


Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades

"The expansion was a continuation of the way the U.S. has grown for too long, which was a consumer-led expansion that was heavily concentrated in housing," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a onetime Bush White House staffer and one of Sen. John McCain's top economic advisers for his presidential campaign. "There was very little of the kind of saving and export-led growth that would be more sustainable."

"For a group that claims it wants to be judged by history, there is no evidence on the economic policy front that that was the view," Holtz-Eakin said. "It was all Band-Aids."

Bush Lead During Weakest Economy in Decades



July 30, 2012

Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years

• The average tax cut that people making over $1 million received exceeded $110,000 in each of the last nine years — for a total of more than $1 million over this period.
• The tax cuts made the tax system less progressive.
  
  Bush Tax Cuts Have Provided Extremely Large Benefits to Wealthiest Americans Over Last Nine Years mdash Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
  
  
  

Here’s the legacy of the Bush tax cuts

1. Drove the deficit :

2. Fueled income inequality:

3. Benefited the wealthy: By any measure, the Bush tax cuts have benefited the wealthy more than the middle class

The legacy of the Bush tax cuts in four charts - The Washington Post

 

[Dad2three]

Not only do I not believe you can tell me what Barry's plan is to fix the economy...I don't believe you can even tell me who his economic advisers are that are formulating the plan!

The reason you can't...is that they not only don't have a plan...they've stopped trying to even come up with one!

Get real Bubba, the economy after 8 years of GOP 'job creator' policies failed. Obama, the second best conservative Prez since Ike (BJ Bill #1), is getting US out of the GOP created hole, slowly but surely!

I know, lets give ANOTHER tax break, that'll help right? THE ONLY GOP 'POLICY'...

When one see posts like this ya know your dealing with a sim-le minded hack.

The only GOP policy. what are you 12?

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

The last policy the GOP passed that worked as promised? lol

 

[g5000]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues. This allows room for tax cuts.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

 

[Dad2three]

What IS Obama's plan to grow the economy, Dad? It's six years into his Presidency...don't you think that would be an ample amount of time for him to have formulated an economic strategy?

So what IS the plan?

The rest of the world went with the conservative 'austerity', how's the US compare? lol

What's sad, Dad...is that you don't seem to grasp that being the same as someone else who DIDN'T spend a trillion dollars on stimulus when you HAVE spent a trillion on stimulus...isn't much of an accomplishment!

You mean over $5 trillion on tax cuts and UNFUNDED wars is better?

Stimulus was 40% tax cuts, it was $788 billion According to most credible economists it created nearly 3 million jobs and kept US out of GOP great depression 2.0.

Remember Dubya's stimulus and TARP?

His $300 per person REBATE' (stimulus) cost nearly $200 billion, did it work? lol

 

[Dad2three]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

HUGE fail, again


No, the Reagan Tax Cuts Did Not Raise Revenues

The fact is that the only metric that really matters is revenues as a share of the gross domestic product. By this measure, total federal revenues fell from 19.6 percent of GDP in 1981 to 18.4 percent of GDP by 1989. This suggests that revenues were $66 billion lower in 1989 as a result of Reagan’s policies.

No Gov. Pawlenty Tax Cuts Don t Pay for Themselves Stan Collender s Capital Gains and Games

Tax cuts do NOT pay for themselves. -Alan Greenspan Former Federal Reserve Chairman

Reagan Chief Economist Feldstein: "It's Not That You Get More Revenue By Lowering Tax Rates, It Is That You Don't Lose As Much."

Feldstein In 1986: "Hyperbole" That Reagan Tax Cut "Would Actually Increase Tax Revenue."

Conservative Economist Holtz-Eakin: "No Serious Research Evidence" Suggests Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Tax Foundation's Prante: "A Stretch" To Claim "Cutting Capital Gains Taxes Raises Tax Revenues."



Bush CEA Chair Mankiw: Claim That Broad-Based Income Tax Cuts Increase Revenue Is Not "Credible," Capital Income Tax Cuts Also Don't Pay For Themselves

Bush-Appointed Federal Reserve Chair Bernanke: "I Don't Think That As A General Rule Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Treasury Secretary Paulson: "As A General Rule, I Don't Believe That Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."

Bush OMB Director Nussle: "Some Say That [The Tax Cut] Was A Total Loss. Some Say They Totally Pay For Themselves. It's Neither Extreme."


Bush CEA Chairman Lazear: "As A General Rule, We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."


Bush Economic Adviser Viard: "Federal Revenue Is Lower Today Than It Would Have Been Without The Tax Cuts."


Bush Treasury Official Carroll: "We Do Not Think Tax Cuts Pay For Themselves."



WANT TO TRY AGAIN?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I mean it's bad enough republicans can't give specific reasons why anyone should be republican other than saying "they aren't democrats!", but Reagan is the only president they feel any sort of pride about. Are republicans stuck in the 80's? Why can't they give any contemporary reasons for voting republican?

Let's look at the facts:

Clinton's job growth was about as good as Reagan's, yet both Bushs' job growth is pathetic in comparison to Obama's.

The Iraq War was the worst political travesty of modern time. He also over saw the Great Recession. That's all Bush Jr will be known for.

Supply side economics has proven to be a fraudulent idea for the good of America as a whole.

Republicans are losing badly on the issue of gay marriage. What other progressive issues will follow?

Sure, republicans will claim the senate next month, but then what? It's not like there will be a republican president come 2016. I guarantee it. Seriously. What exactly are they going to do improve this country if their mindset is stuck in the 80's? The only reason they are even taking the senate is because the current democrats running are pussies (oh and gerrymandering). May I remind you of republican disapproval ratings? They are at 75%! Is that all the have to show for? Being chosen over shitty democratic candidates? It certainly won't be for specific policies.

Polls show Americans favor democratic policies:

1) Background checks on gun ownership
2) Raising the minimum wage
3) Gay marriage
4) Extending unemployment benefits.

Funny thing is? Douche bags like you spend more time thinking about RR than any Republican I know.

 

[Dad2three]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues. This allows room for tax cuts.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

If it 'worked', why 11 tax INCREASING revenue bills under Ronnie, even though the top rate was 50% the first 6 years? lol



No, the Reagan Tax Cuts Did Not Raise Revenues

So here’s the rate of growth of real per capita federal revenues between successive business cycle peaks

But real revenues per capita grew only 19 percent over the same period — better than the likely Bush performance, but still nothing exciting. In fact, it’s less than revenue growth in the period 1972-1980 (24 percent) and much less than the amazing 41 percent gain from 1992 to 2000.


So here’s the annual rate of growth of real revenue per capita over some cycles:

1973-1979: 2.7%
1979-1990: 1.8%
1990-2000: 3.2%
2000-2007 (probable peak): approximately zero

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/reagan-and-revenue/

 

[g5000]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

HUGE fail, again


No, the Reagan Tax Cuts Did Not Raise Revenues

You are confusing Reagan's two tax cuts with his the entirely different program of eliminating tax expenditures. Cutting tax expenditures most certainly did increase revenues.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986.

He was the last president to preside over a significant tax reform, one that did exactly what both candidates in this year’s presidential election said they want to do: lower tax rates and close loopholes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/business/a-starting-point-for-tax-reform-what-reagan-did.html

 

[Dad2three]

I mean it's bad enough republicans can't give specific reasons why anyone should be republican other than saying "they aren't democrats!", but Reagan is the only president they feel any sort of pride about. Are republicans stuck in the 80's? Why can't they give any contemporary reasons for voting republican?

Let's look at the facts:

Clinton's job growth was about as good as Reagan's, yet both Bushs' job growth is pathetic in comparison to Obama's.

The Iraq War was the worst political travesty of modern time. He also over saw the Great Recession. That's all Bush Jr will be known for.

Supply side economics has proven to be a fraudulent idea for the good of America as a whole.

Republicans are losing badly on the issue of gay marriage. What other progressive issues will follow?

Sure, republicans will claim the senate next month, but then what? It's not like there will be a republican president come 2016. I guarantee it. Seriously. What exactly are they going to do improve this country if their mindset is stuck in the 80's? The only reason they are even taking the senate is because the current democrats running are pussies (oh and gerrymandering). May I remind you of republican disapproval ratings? They are at 75%! Is that all the have to show for? Being chosen over shitty democratic candidates? It certainly won't be for specific policies.

Polls show Americans favor democratic policies:

1) Background checks on gun ownership
2) Raising the minimum wage
3) Gay marriage
4) Extending unemployment benefits.

Funny thing is? Douche bags like you spend more time thinking about RR than any Republican I know.

Bullshit, the current right wingers like Hannity and Rushblo have wet dreams about Ronnie!

 

[g5000]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I mean it's bad enough republicans can't give specific reasons why anyone should be republican other than saying "they aren't democrats!", but Reagan is the only president they feel any sort of pride about. Are republicans stuck in the 80's? Why can't they give any contemporary reasons for voting republican?

Let's look at the facts:

Clinton's job growth was about as good as Reagan's, yet both Bushs' job growth is pathetic in comparison to Obama's.

The Iraq War was the worst political travesty of modern time. He also over saw the Great Recession. That's all Bush Jr will be known for.

Supply side economics has proven to be a fraudulent idea for the good of America as a whole.

Republicans are losing badly on the issue of gay marriage. What other progressive issues will follow?

Sure, republicans will claim the senate next month, but then what? It's not like there will be a republican president come 2016. I guarantee it. Seriously. What exactly are they going to do improve this country if their mindset is stuck in the 80's? The only reason they are even taking the senate is because the current democrats running are pussies (oh and gerrymandering). May I remind you of republican disapproval ratings? They are at 75%! Is that all the have to show for? Being chosen over shitty democratic candidates? It certainly won't be for specific policies.

Polls show Americans favor democratic policies:

1) Background checks on gun ownership
2) Raising the minimum wage
3) Gay marriage
4) Extending unemployment benefits.

Funny thing is? Douche bags like you spend more time thinking about RR than any Republican I know.

Bullshit, the current right wingers like Hannity and Rushblo have wet dreams about Ronnie!

Generalization at it's finest....
Lets see some stats or it's just you flapping your lips.

 

[g5000]

Bullshit, the current right wingers like Hannity and Rushblo have wet dreams about Ronnie!

This is true. Right up to the last election, every GOP candidate has tried to compare themselves favorably to Reagan. They even had one of the primary debates in the Reagan Library!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

So allowing me to keep more of my money is stealing? Such a good little commie.

 

[g5000]

Here's Gingrich ringing the Reagan gong as much as possible in that debate:

GINGRICH: No, but it means that, if he wants to write another book, I'll write another foreword.

(LAUGHTER)

As he himself -- look, he's said himself, that was an interesting book of ideas by somebody who's not proposing a manifesto for president. And I think to go back and try to take that apart is silly.

But let me just use my time for a second, if I might, Brian. I served during the Reagan campaign with people like Jack Kemp and Art Laffer. We had an idea for job creation. I served as a freshman -- or as a sophomore helping pass the Reagan's jobs program. Atnewt.org, I put out last Friday the response to the Obama stagnation.

The fact is, if you took the peak of the Reagan unemployment, which he inherited from Carter, by last Friday, going month by month, under Ronald Reagan, we'd have 3,700,000 more Americans working.

When I was speaker, we added 11 million jobs, in a bipartisan effort, including welfare reform, the largest capital gains tax cut in history. We balanced the budget for four straight years.

The fact that President Obama doesn't come to the Reagan Library to try to figure out how to create jobs, doesn't talk to any of these three governors to learn how to create jobs, doesn't talk to Herman Cain to learn how to create jobs tells you that this is a president so committed to class warfare and so committed to bureaucratic socialism that he can't possibly be effective in jobs.

 

[g5000]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

So allowing me to keep more of my money is stealing? Such a good little commie.

A common argument that utterly fails to see both sides of the equation.

That money is coming out of someone else's pocket, leech. You are no different than someone on food stamps or someone with an Obamaphone. You scream like a welfare queen when it is your government gift on the line.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

So allowing me to keep more of my money is stealing? Such a good little commie.

A common argument that utterly fails to see both sides of the equation.

That money is coming out of someone else's pocket, leech. You are no different than someone on food stamps or someone with an Obamaphone. You scream like a welfare queen when it is your government gift on the line.

You liberals are morally bankrupt.
Only you could call letting people keep more money that they earned stealing.
While calling those who do nothing but take deserving of those dollars.
What a loon..

 

[g5000]

Let's use the road in front of your house to represent all government obligations. Even if you pare government spending down to the bare bones, there will still be a government budget which must be paid for by the taxpayers.

So let's say the total bill for the budget in front of your house is $500.

If you and your next door neighbor earn identical incomes, you should both have a $500 tax bill.

But you get some of that money back because you demanded a deduction for paying mortgage interest. Your neighbor rents or has paid off his house, so he does not get a deduction.

You also demanded money back for having kids. Your neighbor has none.

So now your bill has dropped to $200. You whoop and holler like a welfare queen about "getting to keep my money".

But who has to pick up that $300 you are no longer paying?

Your neighbor, that's who, leech.

But he is going to balk if his taxes are increased by 60% to cover your $300. So his tax bill may go up 20% since Congress wants to be re-elected and won't have a chance if they increase tax rates by 60%.

That means the balance has to be borrowed.

We are living in an insane system in which people earning identical incomes are paying radically different taxes!!! Because of leeches who want their government gifts.

And that is why this bullshit about "keeping more of my own money" argument utterly fails. You have failed to see both sides of the equation. That money you get back (which you see as "getting to keep") is coming from other people and from borrowing.

You are stealing money from other people's pockets, and causing deficit spending and higher tax rates.

 

[g5000]

What some people who consider themselves "conservatives" don't understand, which Reagan did understand, is that when you give someone a tax deduction, exemption, or credit, the cost of that deduction/exemption/credit comes out of someone else's pocket or has to be borrowed.

This results in deficit spending and higher tax rates.

Reagan closed a lot of these "loopholes", which allowed him to lower tax rates.

For some reason, modern day "conservatives" are intellectually incapable of grasping this simple concept.

So allowing me to keep more of my money is stealing? Such a good little commie.

A common argument that utterly fails to see both sides of the equation.

That money is coming out of someone else's pocket, leech. You are no different than someone on food stamps or someone with an Obamaphone. You scream like a welfare queen when it is your government gift on the line.

You liberals are morally bankrupt.
Only you could call letting people keep more money that they earned stealing.
While calling those who do nothing but take deserving of those dollars.
What a loon..

Reagan got it. Too bad you don't.

But then, Reagan was pretty smart.

 

[Dad2three]

ONE policy conservatives have EVER been on the correct side of history on?

Just one? That's easy!

Reagan broadened the tax base by closing off a lot of tax expenditures. This increased revenues.

You may have noticed I have frequently advocated on this forum the elimination of all tax expenditures.

Just an old Reagan Republican, I am.

HUGE fail, again


No, the Reagan Tax Cuts Did Not Raise Revenues

You are confusing Reagan's two tax cuts with his the entirely different program of eliminating tax expenditures. Cutting tax expenditures most certainly did increase revenues.

The Tax Reform Act of 1986.

He was the last president to preside over a significant tax reform, one that did exactly what both candidates in this year’s presidential election said they want to do: lower tax rates and close loopholes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/business/a-starting-point-for-tax-reform-what-reagan-did.html

So HOW DID THAT BROADEN THE BASE AS YOU FIRST PREMISED? LOL


Increasing cap gains to 28%? lol The GOP would have a fit today


In 1984, the top one percent of income earners received 8.4% of national income, while in 1989 it increased to 13.5%. The effect of the 1986 reform on this shift has been subjected to several economic studies

JSTOR An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

It worked huh? lol

PLEASE tell me how much NEW revenues this brought in? And for how long?

A bill signed Oct 1986 that took effect Jan 1987 and 'reformed' by HW in 1990 is a 'success'? lol



Why did HW NEED to increase tax rates and then Clinton do it again?

Going from 17.9% of GDP to 17.5% is an increase? Or Individual income taxes of 8.2% to less than 8% is increasing? lol

Yes, Ronnie lowered tax rates and got rid of loopholes, and continued starving US of revenues like his first tax cuts for the rich did!

Historical Source of Revenue as Share of GDP



Successful? Only to right wingers!

 

[g5000]

If your business model can't succeed unless you get money from the government for "capital depreciation", then your business model sucks. You should not be in business. Your business should die and make room for those who are better at doing things.