Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sales—i.e., lack of demand—is the No. 1 concern, beating out taxes, regulations, inflation, and everything else.
Not surprising, considering we're in a prolonged recession.
Poor sales was at 23% in the survey. Taxes is at 20%. Regulation and red tape rounds out the top three concerns at 16%. Not exactly a wide spread on those numbers, either.
Now what happens when the economy recovers? The number one concern - poor sales - will drop to the bottom of the list, or vanish from the list completely. Can the same be said for taxes or regulation? Not a chance. Guess what the new top concerns will be?
It's pretty simple, people, and stupidly obvious. Anyone that doesn't see this propaganda piece for what it is, is either an idiot, willfully ignorant or they themselves are pushing the agenda promoted by the propaganda, and are willing to be dishonest in order to do it.
I know right, some people just don't know the difference between communism and socialism. Failure of our public education system.
It's still a bad f--king idea. Technically the USSR wasn't Communist, it was socialist. Also, the Wooblie movement during her involvement was a lot more militant back then.
It's also fair to say that a magazine that admires her to the point of taking its name from her nickname might be a tad biased towards socialist policies.
It's still a bad f--king idea. Technically the USSR wasn't Communist, it was socialist. Also, the Wooblie movement during her involvement was a lot more militant back then.
It's also fair to say that a magazine that admires her to the point of taking its name from her nickname might be a tad biased towards socialist policies.
Granted, but you've still not addressed the substance of the argument.
It's still a bad f--king idea. Technically the USSR wasn't Communist, it was socialist. Also, the Wooblie movement during her involvement was a lot more militant back then.
It's also fair to say that a magazine that admires her to the point of taking its name from her nickname might be a tad biased towards socialist policies.
I would never say it was not a biased magazine. It certainly is a left leaning magazine. It would intellectually dishonest not to admit that, but it is helpful to look at facts no matter what the source.
The stimulus failed: The stimulus DID fail. It added jobs, but it added temporary jobs which are disappearing again. Taken directly from the article: "the 2009 stimulus wasn't as well designed as it could have been. It was also sold badly. If the bill passed, administration economists predicted, unemployment would peak at 8 percent and then start declining (PDF). But the recession was far worse than the White House originally thought" The article ADMITS that the stimulus failed and directly contradicts itself!
The deficit is our biggest problem right now: Taken from the article: "It's true that the United States needs to address its long-term deficit problem". The article again, directly contradicts itself. It admits that on a long term scale, the deficit is the biggest problem.
Lower Taxes are the best way to grow an economy: The article uses baseless correlations across loose ties and the single article of a single economist to 'prove this'. And you want me to take it seriously?
regulatory uncertainty is clogging the economy: the article uses public opinion polls to 'prove' its position. You cannot made informed decision purely on the opinion of a public opinion poll that does not even cite it's polling methodology!
Obama is debasing the dollar: The FED has increase the net monetary base, and while the effects have not yet been felt, that is not to say that they won't be. Increasing the monetary base of an economy leads to inflation, which devalues the dollar. The article is unbelievably short sighted on this one.
If you unshackle the rich, they will rev up the economy: This is absolutely not a myth. Companies are not hiring right now SOLELY because the first 'myth' listed is not a myth. There is so much uncertainty in the political and economic system that companies hold onto more liquid assets to mitigate that risk. Investments in business growth rev up the economy, and only the wealthy invest in business growth.
a lot of them are "old guys" who are still fighting the war against communism, in their minds.
i guess to them, when we print trillions of new dollars to support asset prices, that is "helping fight communism" by pushing the former working class into poverty and unemployment.
Conservatives were the biggest supporters of the war on communism? Me thinks you need a history lesson.
We have worse than communism. We have an oligarchy pretending to be a meritocracy. We've structured our economy primarily to meet the needs of our greediest citizens. That's insane.
You certainly don't see poor people creating jobs or spending millions of dollars to make more money than they had before.
Seems pretty straight forward and simple to me but then again the word capital to the OP is an evil word.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
