I honestly feel that more republicans would abandon their party if they just accepted two facts:

[zeke]

Too bad, your opinions aren't really facts. Regulatory and tax uncertainty is causing business to sit on their hands. As for #2 you're just full of it.

So you just stick your assh.......I mean opinion out there and want others to accept what you say as "fact" and not just your "opinion"? Why would anyone do that?

That's funny as hell. IMO.

 

[zeke]

I said regulatory and tax uncertainty, businesses have to be able to forecast to make major capital expenditures, they can't do that in todays climate, so they are sitting on their hands and checkbooks.

\



Seeing as how you present your opinion as fact, how about the companies names that YOU KNOW are sitting on their hands so to speak, not hiring or expanding, because of the uncertainty of regulations.

Should be easy with all those facts you have.Who are those companies?

 

[hortysir]

Too bad, your opinions aren't really facts. Regulatory and tax uncertainty is causing business to sit on their hands. As for #2 you're just full of it.

Regulations do very little to hinder job growth. The BLS stats prove that.

I said regulatory and tax uncertainty, businesses have to be able to forecast to make major capital expenditures, they can't do that in todays climate, so they are sitting on their hands and checkbooks.

Nothing about thAt makes any sense. They are wealthier than ever before. They simply don't want to invest. Of course, again, we don't need an increase in investment. Increasing supply does jack shit to increase demand. Businesses don't do better just because they have more to sell.

Right now why should a business spend major bucks on R&D, new machinery or anything else, like you said they are doing just fine the way things are. They need to see a potential for a reasonable return on their investment or they will stick with what's working.

They need to invest in a stronger labor force is what they need to do.

Didn't you just say that businesses don't do better just because they make more product?
Why increase their labor costs?

 

[Iceweasel]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

Can you support any of that?

 

[AmericanFirst]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

The Republican Party has moved so far to the right, it's ridiculous.

The insurance mandate, Obamacare, was the republican healthcare plan.

Liar

 

[Jackson]

I believe Democrats are leaving their party once they comprehended meaning of the dangerous actions done by the incredible fool that lives in the White House.

 

[hadit]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

Rather disingenuous, don't you think, to say REPUBLICANS should abandon their party when you say "The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster"?

Here's a hint for those who were held back by government schools. Republicans have not been in control of a whole lot of anything until January of this year. You're complaining about democrat policies.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Too bad, your opinions aren't really facts. Regulatory and tax uncertainty is causing business to sit on their hands. As for #2 you're just full of it.

The climate has been changing for 4,500,000,000 years... you would think the "pro-science" crew would be able to get their peabrains around that simple fact.

 

[DGS49]

Facts? Jesus.

FACT: The ONLY legitimate purpose of the Internal Revenue Code is to raise money to pay for the legal and Constitutional functions of government, which are mainly listed in the Constitution (Article I, Section 8).

The Internal Revenue Code is NOT to be used as a tool to take money from people who, in your opinion, have (or make) TOO MUCH of it.

FACT: The Federal Government lacks the power under our Constitution to take money from taxpayers and give it to others living within our borders (many of whom are not citizens or not even in this country legally). There is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that authorized giving money directly to anyone other than a government employee or a government contractor. Farm subsidies are unconstitutional. SBA loans are unconstitutional. Federal housing assistance is unconstitutional. And on, and on, and on.

FACT: Some taxpayer funds naturally and properly end up in the hands of the "middle class" and, depending how you define it, the "lower class." This happens through government employment, government contracting, and government-sponsored pensions, including Social Security (which is also unconstitutional, but that's a discussion for another day).

FACT: Congress endlessly tries to use the Internal Revenue Code as a device, not to raise funds for the legitimate functions of government, but to subsidize or punish activities that it deems desirable or undesirable. For example, it treats investment gains more favorably than ordinary income or interest & dividends. This is to encourage people to make capital investments that, the theory goes, will help the economy to grow. The IRC allows people and businesses to accelerate the depreciation of capital assets for the same purpose: to incentivize the building and acquisition of capital assets.

The ONLY things the government can legitimately do to "help the middle class" are described in the preamble of the Constitution - basically to create a free society where you can work to support yourself, without interference from the government.

FACT: Raising the minimum wage creates no wealth. It merely takes money from one source and shifts it to another. Psychologically (if you are stupid), raising the MW makes people feel good because they see - in their mind - hordes of people who current make X dollars a week, and now will make X+10% or something like that. They fail to see that (a) the money has to come out of someone else's pocket, and (b) the people paying that money are going to react to the rate increase. Hours will be cut, people will be laid off, automation measures that were not feasible yesterday now become more attractive. This is why we pump our own gas now, rather than have an attendant pump the gas, check your oil, clean your windshield, and brave the cold while you sit in your warm car. Which is the way it used to be when the MW was a dollar (maybe $5/hr in today's dollars).

Billy, I would wager a hundred dollars to a penny that you are not financially emancipated. You probably don't even know what the expression means. Your knowledge of Government and Economics would fit into a small thimble, and leave plenty of room for it to slosh from side to side without spilling over.

 

[OKTexas]

Too bad, your opinions aren't really facts. Regulatory and tax uncertainty is causing business to sit on their hands. As for #2 you're just full of it.

So you just stick your assh.......I mean opinion out there and want others to accept what you say as "fact" and not just your "opinion"? Why would anyone do that?

That's funny as hell. IMO.

Of course, just like the OP, but unlike him/it/her I've got fortune 500 CEO's that agree with me. Google is your friend and it's been discussed on this board more than a couple of times.

 

[OKTexas]

I said regulatory and tax uncertainty, businesses have to be able to forecast to make major capital expenditures, they can't do that in todays climate, so they are sitting on their hands and checkbooks.

\



Seeing as how you present your opinion as fact, how about the companies names that YOU KNOW are sitting on their hands so to speak, not hiring or expanding, because of the uncertainty of regulations.

Should be easy with all those facts you have.Who are those companies?

Read this article.

US CEOs see dimmer economic growth in 2015

 

[Wildman]

Hey! Do you realize Liberals may be reading your post? That's our secret.

>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<
bad me, i am sorry i gave out top secret info,

i'll take those 40 lashes with the wet knoodle now.

 

[Wildman]

reasonable restrictions.

>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<
you ******* people keep using that word "REASONABLE", yet you can not define the word.., your "reasonable" most certainly will not be what i consider "reasonable", i'll be right up front with you and every ******* liberfool here, in plain English, without trying to pick it apart this is my "REASONABLE"

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

now, show me your version of "reasonable" !!

 

[bripat9643]

Too bad, your opinions aren't really facts. Regulatory and tax uncertainty is causing business to sit on their hands. As for #2 you're just full of it.

Oh trust me they are facts.

Trust you?

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!

 

[Preacher]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

I left the republican party.....but I didn't join the democrat party....

 

[bripat9643]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

You do realize you are wrong on both counts?

If you want to help the middle class, you remove the downward pressure on business (regulations and big government) so that middle class job creation can happen.

In addition, the majority of the country is right of center.

Have a nice night.

Regulations do very little to inhibit job growth. The BLS data proves that.

Horeseshit. Regulations have prevented a single new oil refinery from being built in this country in the last 50 years. Now Obama is creating regulations that will shut down all the coal fired power plants. Those are just two examples. Do you claim that isn't inhibiting job growth?

 

[hortysir]

Billy still not came back to prove ANY of his OP claims??

 

[bripat9643]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. And even if they were investing more money, it wouldn't do jack shit to increase economic demand which is ultimately what matters. Businesses invest more when demand is up. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

They use those wedge issues in #2 to win over people who know number 1 is true. They may not like guns but they hate gays. And if they care enough about an issue like abortion they don't care about anything else.

Both are false. Believing either of them is proof that you're a congenital sucker.

 

[Billy000]

1) if you want to stimulate economic growth, you help the middle class and poor, not the wealthy. Think about this. The wealthy are doing better now MORE THAN EVER BERORE, so why has growth not been faster? It's because the middle class is shrinking because of rising income inequality. The rise in income inequality will only destabilize our economy even further because consumer spending is decreasing. Consumer spending is vital to the economy - it accounts for 70% of it.

Meanwhile, all this stimulus (tax cuts) to the wealthy does jack shit for the economy overall. Why? Two reasons: A) the wealthy are investing less and less these days because it is just easier for them to keep the money they save rather than make huge investments to grow their business. B) the wealthy, individually when it comes to consumer spending, spend just as much money as someone in the middle class does when it comes to daily/monthly purchases. Sure they make extravagant purchases, but those ultimately do little for the economy at large.

2) Most Americans side with liberal issues that republicans oppose like raising the minimum wage, certain gun control laws, extending unemployment benefits, and gay marriage. Oh and recent polls show that most Americans believe in dramatic climate change and want the gov to do something about it.

You do realize you are wrong on both counts?

If you want to help the middle class, you remove the downward pressure on business (regulations and big government) so that middle class job creation can happen.

In addition, the majority of the country is right of center.

Have a nice night.

Regulations do very little to inhibit job growth. The BLS data proves that.

Horeseshit. Regulations have prevented a single new oil refinery from being built in this country in the last 50 years. Now Obama is creating regulations that will shut down all the coal fired power plants. Those are just two examples. Do you claim that isn't inhibiting job growth?

I am saying overall national job growth is affected only slightly.

 

[Billy000]

Billy still not came back to prove ANY of his OP claims??

I did actually. I didn't reply to your post but I did reply to oktexas's post asking for the same thing. He posted a few after you asked for proof. Check it out. I don't feel like re linking them but the minimum wage and climate change claims are substantiated by polls from Gallup and The Washington Examiner respectively.