Not just Wynn....

Cancel 2016.2

Cancel 2016.2

The Almighty
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAna...5/Marcus-Home-Truths-On-Jobs.aspx?src=HPLNews

IBD: What's the single biggest impediment to job growth today?

Marcus: The U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.
Click to expand...
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Republicans don't like Obama. Why would Republican businesspersons be any different?
Click to expand...

The stupidity of the left is highlighted in the above post by our resident Democrat apologist. Ever refusing to acknowledge that those that CREATE JOBS are not doing so due to the uncertainty emanating from the ever 'more taxes/more regulations/spend spend spend the tax payers money' crowd currently running the asylum in DC.
 
Superfreak said:
The stupidity of the left is highlighted in the above post by our resident Democrat apologist. Ever refusing to acknowledge that those that CREATE JOBS are not doing so due to the uncertainty emanating from the ever 'more taxes/more regulations/spend spend spend the tax payers money' crowd currently running the asylum in DC.
Click to expand...


We've been over this before. Companies aren't hiring because there isn't sufficient demand to justify new hires.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Republicans don't like Obama. Why would Republican businesspersons be any different?
Click to expand...

Well for one to people who run businesses it is not about political ideology it is about money and results. Do you believe the two heads of a company would have a discussion such as "I want to hire more workers but because I'm a Republican I want the economy to be bad so it makes Obama look bad so we shouldn't hire anyone" or "We have no need to hire right now but because I'm a Democrat and want Obama to look good we are going to hire people anyway"?
 
David St. Hubbins said:
We've been over this before. Companies aren't hiring because there isn't sufficient demand to justify new hires.
Click to expand...

You have made that claim before, yet when confronted with the fact that isn't the case, you simply stomp your feet and chant 'its not Obama's fault'

You are full of shit. Wynn would be building if not for the regulatory environment. Small businesses aren't hiring because of the GOVERNMENT as YOUR OWN LINK THE OTHER DAY PROVED.

Yet you continue to pretend that demand will suddenly just spring to life. I WONDER.... in your fantasy world, what is it that will spark demand????

Just a guess.... is it.......... MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING????
 
I guess Cawack-off & Company don't think that demand drives production.


There's no demand, hence no need for production of good or services, hence no need for workers.


Maybe the solution is tax cuts for the rich, corporate subsidies, loopholes, and deregulation?


Seems like we tried that for 8 years recently.


Did it work?
 
cawacko said:
Well for one to people who run businesses it is not about political ideology it is about money and results. Do you believe the two heads of a company would have a discussion such as "I want to hire more workers but because I'm a Republican I want the economy to be bad so it makes Obama look bad so we shouldn't hire anyone" or "We have no need to hire right now but because I'm a Democrat and want Obama to look good we are going to hire people anyway"?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that business make decisions based on ideology, just that they apportion blame based on ideology.
 
Superfreak said:
You have made that claim before, yet when confronted with the fact that isn't the case, you simply stomp your feet and chant 'its not Obama's fault'

You are full of shit. Wynn would be building if not for the regulatory environment. Small businesses aren't hiring because of the GOVERNMENT as YOUR OWN LINK THE OTHER DAY PROVED.

Yet you continue to pretend that demand will suddenly just spring to life. I WONDER.... in your fantasy world, what is it that will spark demand????

Just a guess.... is it.......... MORE GOVERNMENT SPENDING????
Click to expand...


Businesses aren't hiring because people are not buying their goods and services at sufficient levels to justify hiring more people. And yes, government spending increases demand.
 
I also think it is particularly hilarious for Home Depot, one of the many beneficiaries of government subsidization of private home ownership, bitching about the government holding back its business. Fuck off.
 
Flat consumer spending is consistent with the idea that the U.S. economy remained in a so-called "soft patch" during the second quarter.




Further, even though gas prices have declined -- which would theoretically help increase consumer spending -- pump prices remain far above year-ago levels, and continue to reduce other spending.




Decreasing unemployment and underemployment is likely the key to increasing lower- and middle-income consumer spending.






uttyfsgcnem8r8qsabks6a.gif

​










http://www.gallup.com/poll/148385/Americans-Continue-Keep-Close-Hold-Spending.aspx
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Businesses aren't hiring because people are not buying their goods and services at sufficient levels to justify hiring more people. And yes, government spending increases demand.
Click to expand...

So you are just going to continue repeating the same moronic nonsense?

Typical dem moron. The only solution is government spending. What a fucking hack.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576457752586269450.html

Yet more on the topic.....

Economic policy in the '80s and '90s was decidedly noninterventionist, especially in comparison with the damaging wage and price controls of the '70s. Attention was paid to the principles of economic and political liberty: limited government, incentives, private markets, and a predictable rule of law. Monetary policy focused on price stability. Tax reform led to lower marginal tax rates. Regulatory reform encouraged competition and innovation. Welfare reform devolved decisions to the states. And with strong economic growth and spending restraint, the federal budget moved into balance.

As the 21st century began, many hoped that applying these same limited-government and market-based policy principles to Social Security, education and health care would create greater opportunities and better lives for all Americans.

But policy veered in a different direction. Public officials from both parties apparently found the limited government approach to be a disadvantage, some simply because they wanted to do more—whether to tame the business cycle, increase homeownership, or provide the elderly with better drug coverage.

And so policy swung back in a more interventionist direction, with the federal government assuming greater powers. The result was not the intended improvement, but rather an epidemic of unintended consequences—a financial crisis, a great recession, ballooning debt and today's nonexistent recovery.

The change in policy direction did not occur overnight. We saw increased federal intervention in the housing market beginning in the late 1990s. We saw the removal of Federal Reserve reporting and accountability requirements for money growth from the Federal Reserve Act in 2000. We saw the return of discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy in the form of tax rebate checks in 2001. We saw monetary policy moving in a more activist direction with extraordinarily low interest rates for the economic conditions in 2003-05. And, of course, interventionism reached a new peak with the massive government bailouts of Detroit and Wall Street in 2008.

View Full Image
taylor
Getty Images/Imagezoo
taylor
taylor

Since 2009, Washington has doubled down on its interventionist policy. The Fed has engaged in a super-loose monetary policy—including two rounds of quantitative easing, QE1 in 2009 and QE2 in 2010-11. These large-scale purchases of mortgages and Treasury debt did not bring recovery but instead created uncertainty about their impact on inflation, the dollar and the economy. On the fiscal side, we've also seen extraordinary interventions—from the large poorly-designed 2009 stimulus package to a slew of targeted programs including "cash for clunkers" and tax credits for first-time home buyers. Again, these interventions did not lead to recovery but instead created uncertainty about the impact of high deficits and an exploding national debt.

Big government has proved to be a clumsy manager, and it did not stop with monetary and fiscal policy. Since President Obama took office, we've added on complex regulatory interventions in health care (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) and finance (the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act). The unintended consequences of these laws are already raising health-care costs and deterring new investment and risk-taking.
Click to expand...

Key Dung stomping his feet again.... come on Dung.... one more round of 'der idn't enough demand so no one will hire' line of bullshit.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
Facts are facts, chief.
Click to expand...

It is not a fact moron. You proved that yesterday with your article on small businesses and why they weren't hiring. 49% stated their primary reason was some sort of Federal Government concern..... taxation, inflation, regulations, health care costs.... yet you continue to ignore that. Less than a quarter of small businesses said it was due to demand. LESS THAN 25%.....

Tell us, does a new casino get built overnight? If not, when would a casino developer plan to build?

Could it be when real estate prices are depressed and the labor market very loose?

Nah... it MUST be when everything is rosy... right?

Tell us Dung.... are companies able to hire and train employees over night?

If not, then what do they do when demand picks up and they have no workers to make the products or produce the services needed? Tell their potential customers... 'sorry, we aren't ready yet, try again later'????
 
So Cawack-off and Company think the housing collapse, subprime mortgage bust and credit crunch were caused by too much government regulation?
 
Superfreak said:
Wow, more avoidance of the topic from a Dem.
Click to expand...


I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just pointing out that what you are posting are the opinions of three Republicans and they *shockingly* oppose Obama's policies and support Republican policies. You want to pretend that what these guy are saying is the gospel truth. Well, it isn't.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm just pointing out that what you are posting are the opinions of three Republicans and they *shockingly* oppose Obama's policies and support Republican policies. You want to pretend that what these guy are saying is the gospel truth. Well, it isn't.
Click to expand...

Funny, because YOU posted a survey of small business owners who collectively said the SAME FUCKING THING..... Funny, because you IGNORE the FACTS there TOO because once again they state your messiah is fucking things up.

AGAIN.... FORTY NINE PERCENT of the small business owners stated their biggest concerns and reasons for not hiring are due to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS ACTIONS on inflation, taxation, regulations, health care costs.... yet you refuse to acknowledge that. Instead you cling to the LESS THAN 25% who stated demand was their primary concern. Why is that Dung?

But yeah... you aren't avoiding anything... LMAO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top