I don't expect you to get this
Since you haven't thus far.
[QUOTE=Esten]Big businesses are posting great profits and sitting on record piles of cash. In many cases they are giving large sums to "shareholders" (ie. Mostly rich folks) through buybacks and dividends. [/QUOTE]Why use scare quotes for "shareholders?" What does it matter if the shareholders are rich folks? They own the company. The fact that companies elect to dividend the owners' ownership interests back to the owners in the form of cash is what companies do when they have excess cash on hand which cannot be reinvested by the company with a risk-adjusted return commensurate with the collective expectations of it shareholders. Most operating companies are not money management firms. Therefore, they return the cash to the shareholder who can make his / her own investment decisions. The fact that companies are returning more cash to shareholders, in this particular environment, would seem to indicate that the increased risk causes them to believe that they should return the capital to the shareholders rather than invest the money on their behalf in the face of significantly higher and unknown risks.
[quote=]So arguing more tax cuts for them is laughable.[/QUOTE]My dear Esten, it is your circular logic that is laughable. You support the administration and all of its policies which have resulted in this new environment of increased risk, and you also support increasing direct costs on these entities during a time of economic uncertainty. While erecting these massive obstacles to success, you expect them to voluntarily increase or maintain headcount, with no promise of increased revenue to offset the massive risk and cost that they must overcome. That, my friend is laughable. Reminds me of the story of a scorpion and a horse trying to cross a river.
[quote=]At the same time, these companies have laid off millions while the banks have limited credit to small business. These are major factors underlying the high unemployment rate. The "uncertainty" argument has some merit but that only goes so far. [/QUOTE]Small businesses do not borrow to increase payroll. Uncertainty, cost and risk (might be a little redundant with the first two) go all the way.
[quote=]So, the people only blaming the government are in fact helping the rich elite by diverting attention away from the problems they cause. That's right where they want you to be. [/QUOTE]The only place they would rather have us be is completely dependent upon them for survival and politically aligned with you (I think I threw up in my mouth a little just contemplating that last one)
[quote=]Small business is different and should get help.[/QUOTE]Small business, in general, doesn't want or need help. What it needs is for the government to get the f*** out of the way.
[quote=]The small business bill in Congress now (that is unfortunately getting held up) would provide funds that could be used to leverage up to $300 billion in small business loans.[/QUOTE]All legislation by this congress should be held up and / or terminated. The SBA process is a f-ing nightmare. The $300B is only going to come out of the very private sector that it is purportedly going to help. "Hello Mr. Small Business, I am from the govt may I please have $100? It's mandatory." "Oh, don't worry, I'll be back next week with a check for you in the amount of $25. Can you believe that? You sure are lucky we are here to help poor shlubs like you!"
[quote=]But since government doesn't understand business and can only make things worse, I suppose you believe this bill is a bad idea? LOL.[/QUOTE]Now you're catching on. I'll let you guess about what I think of this legislation.
[quote=]I recall the government recently stepped in and saved the country from another depression.[/QUOTE]I must have missed this. Perhaps you could cite some real economists (not political hacks) who support this statement.
[quote=]With the bailout and stimulus,[/QUOTE]Again, I must have been traveling, as I am not aware of this.
[quote=]markets have recovered significant ground,[/QUOTE]Just helping those rich f***ers you were complaining about.
[quote=]and we've gone from negative to positive GDP growth which has exceeded that seen following the previous two recessions.[/QUOTE]Please cite facts and figures to go with your fantasy. The fact that the Labor Dept places unemployment at 16.5% (and then dresses it up to 9.5% by marginalizing more than 10 million unemployed and underemployed Americans) does not seem to cast a good light on your utopia.
[quote=]Only the ignorant and foolish believe the above quoted statement.[/QUOTE]The quote you reference was El Alamo's (quotes of quotes get deleted by the software): "Every attermpt [sic] by the government to involve itself in the economy is actually another shovel of dirt digging a deeper grave for our economy."
You already think that I am ignorant and foolish, so why mess with a good thing. While the statement is presented as an absolute ("Every"), I might present the notion starting with "nearly every..."
"Stupid is as stupid does"
ObamaCare Meets the Voters
[QUOTE=Esten]Oh shit.
Tracking Poll Finds Health Reform Law Gaining In Popularity. [/quote]They held another type of poll in Missouri on Tuesday, and We will see more polls like this in November....... More "oh shit's" coming I suspect.
[quote] By JOHN FUND.
Missouri voters overwhelmingly rejected a key tenet of ObamaCare, as 71% supported a ballot proposition yesterday to prohibit penalizing people who fail to procure health insurance. The measure carried all but two of the state's 115 counties. It even managed to win 42% of the vote in the black-majority city of St. Louis. [/quote][url]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704017904575409360128023930.html[/url]
[b]Who to believe?[/b]
Smokin too much sh*t makes your brain soft!
"Obamacare is gaining popularity". IALOTFLMAO!
Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america?
Suggest you pocket your crazy point of view for another 75 days or so. In novemeber you will all be banished to the "what if we'd done things differently" catagory. Just remember who told ya first!
Happy Mongering All. Toymann
Prop C got lots of Democratic votes.
[QUOTE=Esten]Prop C only asked about one part of HCR not the entire package. And its the unpleasant part that makes the whole thing work. Not too surprising this particular component isn't popular. If the question had been about insurance denials for pre-existing conditions we all know what those results would have been. Further, the results were skewed by heavy Republican turnout for Senate primaries.[/QUOTE]That's mostly speculation and smoke blowing on your part, but lets take a look at the numbers. [QUOTE]The secret inside the primary numbers is: It got lots of Democratic votes.
Here's how we know:
(And these numbers are courtesy the Missouri Secretary of State's website.
PROPOSITION-C.
Yes 667,680 No 271,102
Republicans cast a lot more primary ballots (perhaps because Prop-C). For the sake of argument, let's say [b]every[/b] GOP primary voter was a Yes.
TOTAL REPUBLICAN PRIMARY VOTES CAST: 577,615
Subtract the Republicans from the "yeses"...and you have 90,065 "yeses" that came from non-Republicans.
The Liberal Party primary had 3,502 ballots cast. The Constitution Party had 1,883. And if all those folks also voted "yes" (even though it seems unlikely)...and subtracted that from the non-Republican "yes" votes...that leaves...84,680 non-Republican, non-Liberal, non-Constitutional "yeses".
[b][u][red] Who's left? Democrats. Only Democrats. [/b][/u][/red]
There is a little mathematical guess work here I grant you, but it is overwhelmingly likely that tens of thousands of Democrats voted "yes" on Prop-C, joining Republicans in handing a Missouri rebuke to the healthcare law and it's Democratic champions in Washington.[/QUOTE]Now since we're speculating I suggest that these voters were not only voting against health care but more likely displaying dissatisfaction with the Obama administration as a whole. IMHO.
[QUOTE]In short, it means little. Unskewed polls on the entire reform package are far more meaningful. [/QUOTE]Personally I think the polls that have voters casting ballots are the best polls of all! (More of these coming soon.)
[quote=Toymann ]Punter. Stop the crazyness! Do you even live in america? [/quote]LOL, I still have a USA "official" address, I'm just not there very often. Oh and I have a USA birth certificate and I'm even willing to produce it!
Missouri, Polls, Democrats & amp; Obama
Missouri:
No matter how you cut it ObamaCare is a loser with the public. Esten, to say the Missouri Prop C outcome was a vote on an unpopular part of ObamaCare is disingenuous on your part as the "unpopular part" is the core of ObamaCare. Even Obama admits it is unworkable without the mandate for all to purchase healthcare or be fined. Sort of like saying well you can buy a $100 million life insurance policy but they rejected the "unpopular part" about having to die to collect it – can't have one without the other. Same thing with ObamaCare, you can't have all the little goodies even in theory without the "unpopular part" and it's not going to work.
Polls:
Well I would guess that anyone on this board who took a statistics course in either their undergrad or grad program can tell you polls can be made to say what you want depending on how the questions are framed and how the sample is selected. Most polling, with a few exceptions, is total BS due to those taking the poll having agendas they are looking to support. While there are some relatively reliable polling sources out there, the major media sources are not among them.
Democrats:
As the House Democrats are called back to Washington to pass "Stimulus II" yet another spending program to payoff teacher's unions since they did not get enough money from Stimulus I it begs the question will the Democrats really pass another spending bill just before the mid-term elections? You would think with the public weary of unsupportable spending, looming tax increases, and the disaffection of the independent voters from their party the Democrats might be a bit gun shy at this point regarding more spending.
With the number of Democrats either falling in the primaries or trailing in their own polls against their Republican opponents, I look for the lame duck session of Congress after the mid- terms to be a blood bath and orgy of Democratic spending before they leave office in January. I can only pray I am wrong.
Obama:
Well with Obama declaring "it could have been worse" and now trying to shape the notion our current economy is the new "normal", I would think these are both pretty flimsy arguments but it is all they have to run with. Obama is banking on the economy and unemployment to improve before 2012 as it appears he is seeing the reality of what the mid-terms are about to serve up, limiting the damage he can do in the next two years.
Jimmy Carter is probably down on his knees every night thanking God for Obama as his presidency will replace Jimmy's as the greatest failure on record.
Responsibility and Irresponsibility
PeterLong is making the same argument I made in an earlier post regarding responsible spending by consumers. Sure credit companies were making credit easy and Fanny and Freddie were giving loans to anyone with the same address for more than three months but it is the individual who is ultimately responsible. They spent as if there were no tomorrow and now tomorrow is here and it is looking pretty ugly.
Government almost by it's definition is the most irresponsible spending entity in existence. Nearly $2 Million to study ants, millions for salmon "ladders" for streams that haven't seen a salmon in over 50 years along the California coast, millions for signs to tell the people they are driving on infrastructure improvements paid for by the "Stimulus" package. I can't even begin to list the pork spending the "Stimulus" has gone for.
Of course Obama is really setting a great example, Michelle and Sasha vacation in Spain (can't do it I the trashy old USA) with a few (30 or 40) friends. Michelle flew over on the same US Air Force aircraft used by Biden at an operational cost of $117,000/ hour according to published records but will reimburse the government for the airfare at the rate of a First Class ticket to Spain which was quoted at $7,400. Lets see that's 8 hours at $117K per hour less the two First Class tickets of $14,800 - man what a deal. The Prez also said they would reimburse the government for their individual expenses but won't disclose how much that will be. They won't even tell anyone how many or how much all the Secret Service agents cost as well as support staff ect which they are not reimbursing the government for.
Sure, everyone needs a vacation, but we elected him not her or the kids so what's up with this little junket, not to mention all the parties and mini-vacations the Prez has already taken.
Isn't this the same President who scolded the country saying that during hard times it was irresponsible for families to blow a bunch of cash in Vegas? Guess that only goes for the Little People not the Elites.
