|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 9:19:40 GMT -8
The Commerce Department says that U.S. businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, the highest figure recorded in about sixty years.
The unemployment rate is 9.6%. Businesses are wringing every last drop of productivity from their employees, who know that their alternatives are to do the extra work or join the 9.6% on the streets.
If private Industry is supposed to be the end all, be all of job creation, profits are extremely high and tax rates for the most affluent (and corporations) are extremely low, why isn't private industry hiring?
And if they continue to refuse to hire, who will fill the gap?
Should we accept 9.6% unemployment? What affect would that have on our cohesiveness?
Who is responsible for stimulating the economy and how do we hold them responsible if they do not produce?
|
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 26, 2010 14:16:12 GMT -8
The Commerce Department says that U.S. businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, the highest figure recorded in about sixty years. The unemployment rate is 9.6%. Businesses are wringing every last drop of productivity from their employees, who know that their alternatives are to do the extra work or join the 9.6% on the streets. If private Industry is supposed to be the end all, be all of job creation, profits are extremely high and tax rates for the most affluent (and corporations) are extremely low, why isn't private industry hiring? And if they continue to refuse to hire, who will fill the gap? Should we accept 9.6% unemployment? What affect would that have on our cohesiveness? Who is responsible for stimulating the economy and how do we hold them responsible if they do not produce? Private industry is recoiling from the stupidity in Washington brought about by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The gov is dumping trash trucks of money into the economy while at the same time telling the private sector that their taxes will go up, their medical costs will go up, their energy costs will go up, their social engineering commitments will increase, the power of the Unions are going up and, with the power of the veto, they can't do a thing about until after the 2012 election. Private industry is playing it smart. Taking advantage of the low hanging fruit that Obama, Pelosi and Reid offer in order to buy votes but they refrain from loading up on employees because they know they will lead to unsustainable commitments on their part (just a Obama is doing to the Government and taxpayer). Stated another way... |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 14:31:28 GMT -8
The Commerce Department says that U.S. businesses earned profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter, the highest figure recorded in about sixty years. The unemployment rate is 9.6%. Businesses are wringing every last drop of productivity from their employees, who know that their alternatives are to do the extra work or join the 9.6% on the streets. If private Industry is supposed to be the end all, be all of job creation, profits are extremely high and tax rates for the most affluent (and corporations) are extremely low, why isn't private industry hiring? And if they continue to refuse to hire, who will fill the gap? Should we accept 9.6% unemployment? What affect would that have on our cohesiveness? Who is responsible for stimulating the economy and how do we hold them responsible if they do not produce? Private industry is recoiling from the stupidity in Washington brought about by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The gov is dumping trash trucks of money into the economy while at the same time telling the private sector that their taxes will go up, their medical costs will go up, their energy costs will go up, their social engineering commitments will increase, the power of the Unions are going up and, with the power of the veto, they can't do a thing about until after the 2012 election. Private industry is playing it smart. Taking advantage of the low hanging fruit that Obama, Pelosi and Reid offer in order to buy votes but they refrain from loading up on employees because they know they will lead to unsustainable commitments on their part (just a Obama is doing to the Government and taxpayer). Stated another way... So, wading through the political ordure you spewed, you believe business is not responsible for hiring, even though they are flush. And yet conservatives say that private industry is the job driver. But the job driver won't do anything, because they face tax increases? What tax increases do they face? Certainly not the Bush giveaway extension? The tax increase that helped employment not one iota, that tax increase? The ones the Conservative party is abetting with intransigence? That tax increase? Business is playing it smart? No they are playing it with only their own interest in mind, which is what you should expect. So what do the unemployed do,ptsdthor, rot? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 26, 2010 15:00:55 GMT -8
Private industry is recoiling from the stupidity in Washington brought about by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. The gov is dumping trash trucks of money into the economy while at the same time telling the private sector that their taxes will go up, their medical costs will go up, their energy costs will go up, their social engineering commitments will increase, the power of the Unions are going up and, with the power of the veto, they can't do a thing about until after the 2012 election. Private industry is playing it smart. Taking advantage of the low hanging fruit that Obama, Pelosi and Reid offer in order to buy votes but they refrain from loading up on employees because they know they will lead to unsustainable commitments on their part (just a Obama is doing to the Government and taxpayer). Stated another way... So, wading through the political ordure you spewed, you believe business is not responsible for hiring, even though they are flush. And yet conservatives say that private industry is the job driver. But the job driver won't do anything, because they face tax increases? What tax increases do they face? Certainly not the Bush giveaway extension? The tax increase that helped employment not one iota, that tax increase? The ones the Conservative party is abetting with intransigence? That tax increase? Business is playing it smart? No they are playing it with only their own interest in mind, which is what you should expect. So what do the unemployed do,ptsdthor, rot? I don't know how many ways it has to be presented to you. Idiotic policy by the Obama admin is why private industry is not hiring. It is not just his income tax policy alone. Business does not know how much the cost of doing business might be with Obama and crew and being conservative on the amount of employees mouths to feed is the prudent course when you have no clue what will come next out of Karl Marx lite. Perhaps business will start hiring knowing that at least the GOP can block idiotic policy for the next two years. Time will tell. The unemployed should have given the congress the power to over-ride Obama's veto instead of pulling for the guys that will extend their 99 weeks of unemployment to something even more ridiculous. Until such time where policy can change, the unemployed may very well rot under this Admin. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 15:20:33 GMT -8
So, wading through the political ordure you spewed, you believe business is not responsible for hiring, even though they are flush. And yet conservatives say that private industry is the job driver. But the job driver won't do anything, because they face tax increases? What tax increases do they face? Certainly not the Bush giveaway extension? The tax increase that helped employment not one iota, that tax increase? The ones the Conservative party is abetting with intransigence? That tax increase? Business is playing it smart? No they are playing it with only their own interest in mind, which is what you should expect. So what do the unemployed do,ptsdthor, rot? I don't know how many ways it has to be presented to you. Idiotic policy by the Obama admin is why private industry is not hiring. It is not just his income tax policy alone. Business does not know how much the cost of doing business might be with Obama and crew and being conservative on the amount of employees mouths to feed is the prudent course when you have no clue what will come next out of Karl Marx lite. Perhaps business will start hiring knowing that at least the GOP can block idiotic policy for the next two years. Time will tell. The unemployed should have given the congress the power to over-ride Obama's veto instead of pulling for the guys that will extend their 99 weeks of unemployment to something even more ridiculous. Until such time where policy can change, the unemployed may very well rot under this Admin. Did you see it, ptsdthor? Alice just ran by followed by a guy in a weird hat.  |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 26, 2010 16:09:40 GMT -8
I am not surprised, but am dismayed by the fact that many can not see that business will not risk capital in an unstable environment that exists because of the Obama Administration. Get business friendly and tax wise and you will see a steady increase in employment. Keep tax rates high and an unstable regulatory climate in place and it will stay about like this till Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers.
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 16:37:38 GMT -8
I am not surprised, but am dismayed by the fact that many can not see that business will not risk capital in an unstable environment that exists because of the Obama Administration. Get business friendly and tax wise and you will see a steady increase in employment. Keep tax rates high and an unstable regulatory climate in place and it will stay about like this till Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers. Horse feathers! Bush did that you say Obama should do and the average guy's wages went down over his two terms. Businesses shipped jobs overseas. When confronted by catastrophe, Bush used the government to help, because even he knew private industry would not do it. When are conservatives going to give up on their faith that business acts on the behalf of people? They act on their own behalf exclusively. Obama is trying to do something in spite of the fact that business leaders will not act and Republicans want power back. ". . .Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers. . ."
 |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Nov 26, 2010 19:38:20 GMT -8
I am not surprised, but am dismayed by the fact that many can not see that business will not risk capital in an unstable environment that exists because of the Obama Administration. Get business friendly and tax wise and you will see a steady increase in employment. Keep tax rates high and an unstable regulatory climate in place and it will stay about like this till Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers. Horse feathers! Bush did that you say Obama should do and the average guy's wages went down over his two terms. Businesses shipped jobs overseas. When confronted by catastrophe, Bush used the government to help, because even he knew private industry would not do it. When are conservatives going to give up on their faith that business acts on the behalf of people? They act on their own behalf exclusively. Obama is trying to do something in spite of the fact that business leaders will not act and Republicans want power back. ". . .Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers. . ."
Small business makes the economy go and this jobless "recovery" has nothing to do with Bush or jobs going over seas, it is about how small business sees the future. The evil business leaders you are talking about are your friends and acquaintances living in your city and neighborhood. The Marxist hogwash is just that. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 26, 2010 20:15:38 GMT -8
Horse feathers! Bush did that you say Obama should do and the average guy's wages went down over his two terms. Businesses shipped jobs overseas. When confronted by catastrophe, Bush used the government to help, because even he knew private industry would not do it. When are conservatives going to give up on their faith that business acts on the behalf of people? They act on their own behalf exclusively. Obama is trying to do something in spite of the fact that business leaders will not act and Republicans want power back. ". . .Obama is shown the door riding on a rail covered with tar and feathers. . ."
Small business makes the economy go and this jobless "recovery" has nothing to do with Bush or jobs going over seas, it is about how small business sees the future. The evil business leaders you are talking about are your friends and acquaintances living in your city and neighborhood. The Marxist hogwash is just that. I did not say business leaders were evil. Let me be clear, again. Businesses are not evil (and for your information I am not any kind of Socialist). I said businesses act in their own self interest. That self interest is not necessarily congruent with my self interest nor is it necessarily congruent with America's interest. If you find that to be a pejorative position for me to take, you are naive. I have found, with few exceptions that when you are dealing with a small business you had better develop some expertise about what they sell or you are likely to be in a precarious bargaining position. But, be that as it may, small business is not driving the train that I am talking about. Big corporations are. They are the businesses sitting on piles of money. And they act in their own self interest too. And as I have said one billion times, there is no reason for me to expect that any business will act in my self interest or the country's. They act in their own self interest and that is why the term "caveat emptor" was coined. If business does not like the future and citizens who want work and obtain some semblance of economic security cannot do so, what should happen? Should we say, "oh well, that's tough", or should somebody try to do something about it? You tell me. Are they not your neighbors and friends just like those business leaders of yours? You would have me give business leaders the benefit of the doubt, but you offer no reciprocation toward people who cannot find work. I don't get it. I really don't. Incidentally, please show me how business has been eviscerated by Obama. Record profits are not a real good indicator of inequitable treatment, but you have already taken me to Wonderland, so I don't expect you to change your opinion. Just for your information, my opinions are more reasonable than you think they are. Some conservatives get caught up in all the labels and go ballistic. And if I am forced to take it, I am going to give it back as well. If we attempted to cooperate we would all seem more reasonable. That won't happen, because as John Boehner (or someone like him) said: Our goal is to make Obama a one term president. He did not say we will work together with Obama to make sure our ideas are incorporated into solutions which are good for the country. He did not say that he would find common ground to improve America. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 26, 2010 23:34:12 GMT -8
I watched the Steve Wynn tape. I am shocked he prefers China. Surely he knows that the Chinese government controls the economy there. As Stu pointed out in a different thread the PLA owns many companys in China. Does the US military own any businesses here? No. Does he not know that China is a fascist dictatorship? They left communism behind awhile ago. Perhaps Wynn figures he would be one of the oligarchs in a fascist America and it would be fine for him. Don't think it would be for those of us that believe in freedom and democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 26, 2010 23:38:56 GMT -8
Someone needs to let Mr. Wynn know that Alexis de Tocqueville said not a word in 1909. He had been dead since 1859. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 26, 2010 23:39:59 GMT -8
To answer the original question...my wife is doing her best to stimulate the economy.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2010 0:14:55 GMT -8
Madison looked into his crystal and saw the worthless shitheel libtards in charge today.
"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.
Federalist 62
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 7:15:43 GMT -8
Madison looked into his crystal and saw the worthless shitheel libtards in charge today. "The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?
Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.
In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.
But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.Federalist 62 Nice paste. So Madison thought laws should not be too complex and he thought businesses needed legal stability to conduct commerce. And I suppose that you infer that just the opposite is happening now. (I am guessing that the parts in red ink are the passages you have used to make your point) And yet, businesses are reaping their highest profits ever and our interest rates continue to be low, because the world still sees us as the most stable place to invest. Perhaps I am wrong on this one and you will correct me , but doesn't capital tend to flow away from overly burdensome regulation and legal instability? Please explain this conundrum. If regulation has become so burdensome that businesses are forced to reap record profits, then perhaps they should move their money overseas immediately! Now you see, I think businesses are far less concerned about all of these regulations than you think they are. You are trying to shoe horn a set of ideological beliefs into a set of economic conditions to make your political point. That's fair enough, I do it too. But. . . .I think the real reason businesses are not expanding and hiring and spending their hoard of funds, because there is insufficient demand from consumers. In order for businesses to grow, in my opinion, more people are going to have to buy. That means more people are going to have to be employed so that they can buy. Which brings me back to my original question afan: Who is responsible for stimulating the economy and how do we hold them responsible if they do not produce? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 7:35:14 GMT -8
To answer the original question...my wife is doing her best to stimulate the economy. My wife is engaged in stimulating. . . . Nevermind. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 27, 2010 8:54:45 GMT -8
Small business makes the economy go and this jobless "recovery" has nothing to do with Bush or jobs going over seas, it is about how small business sees the future. The evil business leaders you are talking about are your friends and acquaintances living in your city and neighborhood. The Marxist hogwash is just that. I did not say business leaders were evil. Let me be clear, again. Businesses are not evil (and for your information I am not any kind of Socialist). I said businesses act in their own self interest. That self interest is not necessarily congruent with my self interest nor is it necessarily congruent with America's interest. If you find that to be a pejorative position for me to take, you are naive. I have found, with few exceptions that when you are dealing with a small business you had better develop some expertise about what they sell or you are likely to be in a precarious bargaining position. But, be that as it may, small business is not driving the train that I am talking about. Big corporations are. They are the businesses sitting on piles of money. And they act in their own self interest too. And as I have said one billion times, there is no reason for me to expect that any business will act in my self interest or the country's. They act in their own self interest and that is why the term "caveat emptor" was coined. If business does not like the future and citizens who want work and obtain some semblance of economic security cannot do so, what should happen? Should we say, "oh well, that's tough", or should somebody try to do something about it? You tell me. Are they not your neighbors and friends just like those business leaders of yours? You would have me give business leaders the benefit of the doubt, but you offer no reciprocation toward people who cannot find work. I don't get it. I really don't. Incidentally, please show me how business has been eviscerated by Obama. Record profits are not a real good indicator of inequitable treatment, but you have already taken me to Wonderland, so I don't expect you to change your opinion. Just for your information, my opinions are more reasonable than you think they are. Some conservatives get caught up in all the labels and go ballistic. And if I am forced to take it, I am going to give it back as well. If we attempted to cooperate we would all seem more reasonable. That won't happen, because as John Boehner (or someone like him) said: Our goal is to make Obama a one term president. He did not say we will work together with Obama to make sure our ideas are incorporated into solutions which are good for the country. He did not say that he would find common ground to improve America. It may shock you to hear that many people share most of your thoughts. It is just in some of the opinion about why things happen or what is the real motivation where we have differences. We might both be wrong. The profit motive for owners is first and foremost in your mind or why should they in business at all? When conditions, tax policy, stability align along business friendly lines you get job creation and even competition for top flight employees. When conditions are such that you are uncertain about even short term policy or that policy is detrimental to economic growth, you will have business wringing out all the productivity possible from present employees before expanding the work force. Worse yet, you may even pull back and export capital to counter hostile government policy as we see with Obama. That is why I see the goal of making Obama a "one termer" a noble one. We can not debase our currency, over regulate business, and double or triple tax profit and not expect jobs and capital to take flight overseas. Being efficient in making the most of a bad business environment should not be misread. If you are good at it and make record profit, just imagine how much better employment and economic activity would be with a smart long term business friendly administration in place. The goal of handcuffing Obama for now and getting rid of him in two years good for business and what is good for business is good for the country. Remember when we used to say that about General Motors? My how times have changed. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 9:06:18 GMT -8
I did not say business leaders were evil. Let me be clear, again. Businesses are not evil (and for your information I am not any kind of Socialist). I said businesses act in their own self interest. That self interest is not necessarily congruent with my self interest nor is it necessarily congruent with America's interest. If you find that to be a pejorative position for me to take, you are naive. I have found, with few exceptions that when you are dealing with a small business you had better develop some expertise about what they sell or you are likely to be in a precarious bargaining position. But, be that as it may, small business is not driving the train that I am talking about. Big corporations are. They are the businesses sitting on piles of money. And they act in their own self interest too. And as I have said one billion times, there is no reason for me to expect that any business will act in my self interest or the country's. They act in their own self interest and that is why the term "caveat emptor" was coined. If business does not like the future and citizens who want work and obtain some semblance of economic security cannot do so, what should happen? Should we say, "oh well, that's tough", or should somebody try to do something about it? You tell me. Are they not your neighbors and friends just like those business leaders of yours? You would have me give business leaders the benefit of the doubt, but you offer no reciprocation toward people who cannot find work. I don't get it. I really don't. Incidentally, please show me how business has been eviscerated by Obama. Record profits are not a real good indicator of inequitable treatment, but you have already taken me to Wonderland, so I don't expect you to change your opinion. Just for your information, my opinions are more reasonable than you think they are. Some conservatives get caught up in all the labels and go ballistic. And if I am forced to take it, I am going to give it back as well. If we attempted to cooperate we would all seem more reasonable. That won't happen, because as John Boehner (or someone like him) said: Our goal is to make Obama a one term president. He did not say we will work together with Obama to make sure our ideas are incorporated into solutions which are good for the country. He did not say that he would find common ground to improve America. It may shock you to hear that many people share most of your thoughts. It is just in some of the opinion about why things happen of what is the real motivation where we have differences. We might both be wrong. The profit motive for owners is first and foremost in your mind or why be in business at all? When conditions, tax policy, stability align along business friendly lines you get job creation and even competition for top flight employees. When conditions are such that you are uncertain about even short term policy or that policy is detrimental to economic growth, you will have business wringing out all the productivity possible from present employees before expanding the work force. Worse yet, you may even pull back and export capital to counter hostile government policy as we see with Obama. That is why I see the goal of making Obama a "one termer" a noble one. We can not debase our currency, over regulate business, and double or triple tax profit and not expect jobs and capital to take flight overseas. Obama may be an anathema to business, but his perceived bias against business (if it exists at all) is blunted by several countervailing forces. Spending the next two years trying to end Obama is less useful than working to fix the problems, in my opinion. Worse, when our high ranking public servants openly prioritize political gain over the business of this country, they undermine their own, as well as the opponent's, freedom of action. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 27, 2010 9:18:22 GMT -8
It may shock you to hear that many people share most of your thoughts. It is just in some of the opinion about why things happen of what is the real motivation where we have differences. We might both be wrong. The profit motive for owners is first and foremost in your mind or why be in business at all? When conditions, tax policy, stability align along business friendly lines you get job creation and even competition for top flight employees. When conditions are such that you are uncertain about even short term policy or that policy is detrimental to economic growth, you will have business wringing out all the productivity possible from present employees before expanding the work force. Worse yet, you may even pull back and export capital to counter hostile government policy as we see with Obama. That is why I see the goal of making Obama a "one termer" a noble one. We can not debase our currency, over regulate business, and double or triple tax profit and not expect jobs and capital to take flight overseas. Obama may be an anathema to business, but his perceived bias against business (if it exists at all) is blunted by several countervailing forces. Spending the next two years trying to end Obama is less useful than working to fix the problems, in my opinion. Worse, when our high ranking public servants openly prioritize political gain over the business of this country, they undermine their own, as well as the opponent's, freedom of action. Getting rid of Obama is a goal. It is not the only goal and it should not be seen as that. Congress will work toward fixing or repealing and replacing ObamaCare. They will try to pass laws that will fix the economy and blunt attempts to make things worse. The Senate is closer to being reasonable now that the GOP has made some gains. They will only have to pick off a few Dems to get some laws passed. Obama can take the Clinton path and go along or take the hard line and hasten his own demise by using his Veto Pen. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 27, 2010 11:35:17 GMT -8
I think businesses are not expanding because they think demand is insufficient for them to do so. End of story.Obama may be an anathema to business, but his perceived bias against business (if it exists at all) is blunted by several countervailing forces. Spending the next two years trying to end Obama is less useful than working to fix the problems, in my opinion. Worse, when our high ranking public servants openly prioritize political gain over the business of this country, they undermine their own, as well as the opponent's, freedom of action. Getting rid of Obama is a goal. It is not the only goal and it should not be seen as that. Congress will work toward fixing or repealing and replacing ObamaCare. They will try to pass laws that will fix the economy and blunt attempts to make things worse. The Senate is closer to being reasonable now that the GOP has made some gains. They will only have to pick off a few Dems to get some laws passed. Obama can take the Clinton path and go along or take the hard line and hasten his own demise by using his Veto Pen. If the republicans want to do more than get rid of Obama, they should do a better job of articulating that fact. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 27, 2010 11:50:30 GMT -8
Getting rid of Obama is a goal. It is not the only goal and it should not be seen as that. Congress will work toward fixing or repealing and replacing ObamaCare. They will try to pass laws that will fix the economy and blunt attempts to make things worse. The Senate is closer to being reasonable now that the GOP has made some gains. They will only have to pick off a few Dems to get some laws passed. Obama can take the Clinton path and go along or take the hard line and hasten his own demise by using his Veto Pen. If the republicans want to do more than get rid of Obama, they should do a better job of articulating that fact. A agree, they should make a list with dumping Obama on it. |
|
