The fiscally irresponsible right refuted on extension of Bush taxcuts

[Bass v 2.0]

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

More monkey speak, you can't back up anything you say but you know how to talk the same lame monkey speak of greedy conservatives- Republican conservatives that is. Let me give you some food for thought regarding those Bush tax cuts and job creation:

Tax cuts for rich don't create jobs - Baltimore Sun

Report: No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts and Job Creation | United for a Fair Economy

And oh, I really love this one:

Hypocritical senators choose tax cuts for rich over job creation - From Our Inbox - MiamiHerald.com

 

[MaggieMae]

The tax provisions kick in next year. Perhaps you missed that part.

W-2's in 2011 will include Obamacare Health care costs as income >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com

Health Care Law and W-2 Forms | FactCheck.org

Q: Does the new health care law require workers to pay income tax on the value of employer-provided health insurance?

A: No. The value will appear on employees’ W-2 forms for information purposes, but will not be considered taxable income.

Tax Help News: How Your Taxes and W-2 will Be Affected by New Health Care Law | Tax Attorney and Tax Resolution Services: IRS Help Blog

There’s a great article on Snopes.com that talks about this further. Basically, H.R. 3590 imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a give threshold. This will be paid be the insurance company, not the employee and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of the families covered by health insurance

Go to links for full analysis.

 

[Jarhead]

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

More monkey speak, you can't back up anything you say but you know how to talk the same lame monkey speak of greedy conservatives- Republican conservatives that is. Let me give you some food for thought regarding those Bush tax cuts and job creation:

Tax cuts for rich don't create jobs - Baltimore Sun

Report: No Correlation Between Bush Tax Cuts and Job Creation | United for a Fair Economy

And oh, I really love this one:

Hypocritical senators choose tax cuts for rich over job creation - From Our Inbox - MiamiHerald.com

I answered this crap in the other thread.

I agree...tax cuts do not create jobs. They create investment in technology that actually ELIMINATES jobs.

However, tax increases in a recession will surely not create jobs and likely will also decrease investment in technology.

The premise is good. Roll back the tax cuts. The timing is bad.

That is all I have been saying.

ANd I like your pet name MONKEY you have given me.....thanks!

 

[MaggieMae]

What you're failing to understand is that there once was a time not too long ago when the top wage earners were also much more interested in maintaining their businesses by hiring the best and the brightest and making sure they kept those people on board by giving them decent wages and benefits. But over the last decade, the top 2% have invested their windfall tax cuts abroad, not in this country and rarely in their own companies.

That is pure speculation.

Nobody objects to rich people. That's a myth. But when greed became the norm, it became a serious problem for the rest of working Americans struggling to maintain a decent lifestyle according to what they had been accustomed to. And now it seems big business and the wealthy CEOs running them still refuse to step up to the plate and help fix the gaping hole between the haves and the have-nots, which has now crept into the middle class.

Marxist theories are not fact. Marxist talking points certainly do win elections though.

Do some reading; do some research. We're not making any of this up.

Start your own business and get back to me on your "research."

Although neither is a perfect solution, if it ever came down to choice, I would most definitely prefer Marxism over Corporate fascism, which is where we were headed (and still are). Sorry, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Wealth And Inequality In America

 

[Jarhead]

What you're failing to understand is that there once was a time not too long ago when the top wage earners were also much more interested in maintaining their businesses by hiring the best and the brightest and making sure they kept those people on board by giving them decent wages and benefits. But over the last decade, the top 2% have invested their windfall tax cuts abroad, not in this country and rarely in their own companies.

That is pure speculation.



Marxist theories are not fact. Marxist talking points certainly do win elections though.

Do some reading; do some research. We're not making any of this up.

Start your own business and get back to me on your "research."

Although neither is a perfect solution, if it ever came down to choice, I would most definitely prefer Marxism over Corporate fascism, which is where we were headed (and still are). Sorry, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Not sure I can agree with you as long as anyone who wants has the right to start their own company.

 

[MaggieMae]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

Conservatives don't believe that stuff, are you kidding? If figures and trends don't fit neatly into their Randian agenda, it all must be coming from that untrustworthy liberal media or the federal government itself. Only THEIR sources are correct.

 

[Jarhead]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

Conservatives don't believe that stuff, are you kidding? If figures and trends don't fit neatly into their Randian agenda, it all must be coming from that untrustworthy liberal media or the federal government itself. Only THEIR sources are correct.

No Maggie. Not for all of us. My source is experience and logic.

Consumer demand was met after the tax cuts. Sadly the tax cuts did not go to human need...it went to technology. There was no need to increase staff equally with the need to meet demand.....technology actually mminimizes the need for humans.

Yes, I agree. The tax cuts do not create jobs. But right now, demand is down. When demand starts to increase, there will be the need to replensih much of what was laid off. And taking money out of the pockets of the employers before hand is by no means a way to let that happen....not saying it will help to keep the cutsd in place...but there is a greater chance it will hurt.

 

[MaggieMae]

News Hounds: Sarah Palin Brings A Cheat Sheet And Hand Notes And She Still Gets The Facts Wrong

Palin says that eliminating Bush's tax cuts for the top 2% of the rich would result in a tax increase of 3.8 trillion dollars, which is just lies and monkey speak for protecting the interests and money of the rich, peer-reviewed unbiased research from Pew indicates that extending the Bush tax cuts would sharply *INCREASE* the federal debt. Thats means that all of the Bush tax cuts needs to be eliminated, not extended. I take the research of the Pew over any rightwing, Republican trash that Palin was fed and is feeding to the American people. Link to Pew Report:


Pew Report: Permanent Extensions of Tax Cuts Would Sharply Increase National Debt - The Pew Charitable Trusts

Palin is arguing for adding to the deficit.

Palin isn't the only one arguing for tax cuts that will eventually run up the national debt, the GOP dumb fucks are determined to keep doing what already has been proven not to work..

Republican Jobs Plan: Bigger Tax Cuts For The Rich

Yes, even more tax cuts for the rich whom they know damn well are not going to create jobs, when the economic crisis hit Americans who suffered and who benefited?

World's rich got richer amid '09 recession: report | Reuters

And unemployment grew.

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

But but but it's you people who continue to tell us that the rich got where they are by hard work and dedication and pulling themselves out of potential poverty. When was the last time I was hired by a poor person? It was a lawyer who took 10 years to finish college because he was poor and couldn't afford to do it in the six years to get two degrees. However, the first law firm he joined consisted of rich frat boy attitudes because their daddies made sure they would land in the same pot of gold. Guess which one got tossed all the pro bono work? Why the one who'd been there, done that of course. (He eventually left to work for Legal Aid where he finally did some good and could sleep well at night.)

And one last time: If the tax cuts for the rich had worked as intended (remember "trickle-down"??????), we would NOT be in this position today. They took their windfall tax cuts and invested everywhere but in America. And that ain't from liberal bloggers and liberal publications. It's a fact.

 

[MaggieMae]

You know...there were several times in my military career that I got a tax cut.

Happened every time I was serving time in a war zone, because they're tax free. Some of the guys who were re-enlistment bonus eligible liked to re-enlist when they were tax free.


Why? Simple........more money.

However.......when we exited the war zone, we were then charged taxes for our paycheck. At some better times, that tax free time was an extra 150 bucks per check in my wallet, but I also knew that when they "expired" (i.e. I left the zone), I had to pay my fair share again.

The Bush tax cuts were for businesses and the rich to start up job growth. That is also why they had an expiration date, because people wanted to see if they would do what everyone said before making them permanent.

Sadly, the jobs market during the tax cuts took a big hit, and there were many people who were jobless as their jobs had now been shipped overseas.

Let the tax cuts expire. The rich had their chance to help stimulate the economy and they failed.

Incidentally, the tax cuts that are currently in place for the middle and lower class? Not gonna be taken away.

Small businesses will benefit from that by the way if the greedy fuckers at the top would let go of some of the money instead of looking for more ways to feather their nests with gold.

The two most important points that right wing media will not tell you.

Point number one I knew already as Fox News reported that quite clearly.

Point number two is strictly speculation based on hypothesis and variables and is not supposed to be reported by the news media as fact.

But I guess you are OK with the "left wing media" reporting that as fact.

Interesting.

Point Number Two has been widely reported. Business are sitting on nearly $2 trillion in cash. Here, take your pick. There's even a report from the WSJ.

Google

 

[MaggieMae]

LOL...you cite two links. One that is to a left wing publication and the other which was a no brainer story. OF COURSE the rich got richer via their investments seeing as many were dumping their stocks thanks to the fear created by the campaigning Obama and the rich bought those stocks at bargain basement prices knowing dam well that it was a great deal...and anyone with half a brain would know that such "buying" will once again boost up the stock.

And one last reminder...it is not tax cuts for the rich. It is tax cuts for the job creators.

Only the left wing bloggers and publications and the left side politicians that use the term "tax cuts for the rich" becuase they know dam well it will anger you and cloud your judgement.....and that is what happens to followers and not independant thinkers.

And by the way, based on my projected income this year, the rollback of the tax cuts will have no affect on me whatsoever....but as a business owner, I would like to see my clients not have to deal with another blow to their bottom line.

Curious...when was the last time you were hired by a poor person?

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

 

[asterism]

Warren Buffett Urges Higher Corporate Taxes
Excerpt from Warren Buffett's letter to his shareholders, 2004:
"If class warfare is being waged in America, my class is clearly winning."

I'm aware of Warren Buffett's political rhetoric, as well as his own financial practices. If he thinks the government needs more money why doesn't he pay more himself?

 

[MaggieMae]

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

This is not your "usual" recession. Hello?

You make no sense by supporting the very job creators who have caused the stock market to dramatically rise. They ARE doing something with their profits, just not hiring. If most employers were making adjustments in the way they do business, studying ways to produce a better widget or service during this recession and therefore prefer to use existing profits to strengthen their businesses in anticipation of future hiring, that would be one thing. But that's not what they're doing. It's almost as thought they want some guarantee that they will forever be profitable. And that's just flat-out nuts.

 

[asterism]

But no sympathy for corporate moochers. Imagine that.

Study says most corporations pay no U.S. income taxes | Reuters


For the tax year 2009, neither Exxon-Mobil nor GE paid a penny in taxes. I'm sure there were others, but those two were the headliners.

Individuals who are millionnaires can afford lobster and cavier for lunch, but you would deny poor children school lunches. It must really suck to be you. If you hate what America has traditionally stood for that much, then leave.

Why should a corporation pay taxes? At best they are just another mechanism to collect taxes on consumers, and an inefficient one at that.

Why shouldn't profit be treated as income?

prof·it
excess of income over expenditure: the excess of income over expenditure, especially in business

income from something: income from an investment or transaction
advantage: an advantage or benefit derived from an activity

Synonyms: income, earnings, revenue, proceeds, turnover, yield, return, takings
See full definition ·

Encarta World English Dictionary

Corporate profit is best utilized as an efficient means to foster innovation. Taxation and the funding of government should be done in an efficient means to sustain Constitutional operations.

It would be much more efficient to only tax personal income and that would maximize government funding. There are various proposals out there, I advocate in favor of the FairTax. However, a progressive personal income tax serves this purpose also.

 

[Jarhead]

You forgot the other part of what Flaylo said, unemployment has risen while the rich got richer, so its intellectually dishonest to use language like "job creators," because there aren't any jobs being created.

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Okay, so if the rich can't hire people during a recession and you guys don't want job stimulation from the government, I guess the whole country will be soon digging in dumpsters if nothing is going to change.

No ma'am. Not at all. Recessions come in cycles and are largely based on marklet saturation. We have recovered without stimuli in the past and we would have this time around as well (IMHO).The demand for goods and services increases in time...and all I am saying is to take more money out of the pockets of business owners after they had multiple quarters of not making the kind of money they are sued to is not smart....whereas it may not help to roll back the tax cuts, it very well may hurt.

I say roll them back...but wait until companies are prosperous again.

 

[asterism]

Spin.

The job creators, who are rich, are getting richer based on their personal investments. But during a recovery and during a growing economy, the rich are the job creators.

During a recession, the job creators can not be expected to create jobs....but there is nothing wrong with investing personal money in something that will MAKE you money. But to use that money, instead, to hire people to siut there and do nothing is a wasteful investment.

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

I disagree with that. Recessions do spur innovation, and innovation requires investment. The problem with *this* recession is that the incentive to take a risk has been and still is declining severely. Therefore there will be much less innovation out there.

 

[Jarhead]

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

This is not your "usual" recession. Hello?

You make no sense by supporting the very job creators who have caused the stock market to dramatically rise. They ARE doing something with their profits, just not hiring. If most employers were making adjustments in the way they do business, studying ways to produce a better widget or service during this recession and therefore prefer to use existing profits to strengthen their businesses in anticipation of future hiring, that would be one thing. But that's not what they're doing. It's almost as thought they want some guarantee that they will forever be profitable. And that's just flat-out nuts.

Excuse me but I disagree.

This was very much a usual recession. What made it unusual was it was used to scare people to vote for a candidate. ANd as we all know, when the consumer is scared, they make decisions that are not in the best interest of economic growth.

What caused this recession had nothing to do with the credit meltdown.

I suggest you spend a bit more time understanding economics.

 

[topspin]

I feel the same as warren, but I'm under the tax limits.
It's easy to say yes when your not paying or have so much that your grand kids wouldn't feel that tax.

 

[Jarhead]

Listen monkey, post evidence of these "job creators" creating jobs, don't feed me that generic Republican monkey talk and rhetoric. The unemployment rate is hovering near and in double digits, where are the jobs? Now you contradict yourself in the same response, you say job creators in one sentence, then you say why hire people to sit there and do nothing, which means you're giving a lame monkey excuse for the rich hoarding the money and taking advantage of tax cuts for self benefit.

No...I am a realist.
We are in a recession. They happen every 6-8 years. I dont expect job creators to create jobs in a recession.
It would be poor business management.

I disagree with that. Recessions do spur innovation, and innovation requires investment. The problem with *this* recession is that the incentive to take a risk has been and still is declining severely. Therefore there will be much less innovation out there.

As long as we have our "leaders" saying that things are bad and would been worse without a stimulus...and the businesses are evil and greedy.....and the end is not near.....and we need to tighteen our belts...and being a business owner means you are evil and greedy....and the rich dont care.....

We will go nowhere.

It is all about leadership and knowing what to say and when to say it.

McCain was a bad choice of candidate....but he did one thing right. He tried to quell the fears of the public when he said the "fundamentals of the economy are sound".....He was acting as a leader.

But you know how children can be. They took it and ran with it.

 

[MaggieMae]

That is pure speculation.



Marxist theories are not fact. Marxist talking points certainly do win elections though.



Start your own business and get back to me on your "research."

Although neither is a perfect solution, if it ever came down to choice, I would most definitely prefer Marxism over Corporate fascism, which is where we were headed (and still are). Sorry, you'll never convince me otherwise.

Wealth And Inequality In America

Not sure I can agree with you as long as anyone who wants has the right to start their own company.

And as soon as they start being profitable and successful, some Big Guy will knock on the door and suck the life right out of the small guy. Takeovers and hostile takeovers are becoming the norm.

 

[asterism]

You really need to get together with a tax accountant and have him/her adequately explain what the new tax law (not passed yet, by the way) will mean for small businesses. It is nowhere near as dire as the conservatives in Washington (and their talking heads) would have you believe. This is an outline of the provisions that are still being debated (when Congress returns), with the exception of the $30 billion which the Republicans managed to ding last week.

How can you call something that is not passed yet nowhere near as dire as anything? The problem right now is that we don't know how this is going to impact small business, and that is directly from my tax accountant. I talked about that in another thread, the inability to forecast fixed and variable costs right now.



Interesting talking point. A $5000 credit to hire a new worker that costs at least $20,000 a year, and only if we meet the guidelines that have yet to be defined (according to my tax accountant). And you wonder why this "stimulus" plan isn't working?

Also, most of the health care reform clauses that will effect small businesses won't even kick in until 2014, so you have plenty of time to strategize.

The tax provisions kick in next year. Perhaps you missed that part.

W-2's in 2011 will include Obamacare Health care costs as income >> Four Winds 10 - fourwinds10.com

Any business accepts a certain amount of risk. It's time for the private sector to step up and start doing their part.

Only if it makes business sense to do so. Otherwise it's as unsustainable as GM before the bailout that was supposed to keep it from filing for bankruptcy.

Incentives to "step up" are being eroded.

People keep screaming for OBAMA to "do something." So he does something, by way of credits and stimulus, and everyone says NO NO NO, that's not what we mean! Yet, they don't define what they mean by DO SOMETHING. Do WHAT?

Cut the tax rates on investment gains, practice proper oversight of the free market instead of intruding and micromanaging, get out of the industries currently nationalized, and do not increase taxes in a recession.

Surely you've heard of these ideas.

It's clear that the Treasury needs revenue, so out of the gate that means ending the tax cuts and with future budget cutting spending in MAJOR areas, including defense, but those major cuts will take much longer to accomplish than a simple expiration of the second round of Bush's tax cuts.

Spending cuts do not require rolling back tax cuts.

Also, you are being disingenuous when you say that future spending cuts will take time when currently there is a spiral upward in increasing spending.

In the meantime, the private sector sits on its collective ass and whines that they don't want to take any chances. Since when? They didn't get where they are by NOT taking chances over the lifetime of their business.

The private sector is hardly sitting on its collective ass and saying they don't want to take any chances. The private sector is generally stuck in a position where the risk to expand does not exceed the expected reward. There are business risks being taken right now just by being in business. Your accusation is false.

If you think you can do better why don't you start a business and put some people back to work?