What happened to all of the doom and gloom economic threads?

[busybody..]

So,

A

DRECK

I DARE

YOU

TO

ANSWER

ME

I

DARE

YOU,

DRECK!

I will tell you nothing, petunia. You would not grasp it, so I will not waste it

 

[unregistered]

 

[richard_daily]

Bullshit! I doubt the good Lady has the inclination let alone a roach clip small enough to smoke your dick, chihuahua.

Believe what you want, and don't let the truth ever get in the way... that's what you always do.

 

[mercury14]

People aren't hiring because they do not know what their costs are going to be in the foreseeable future.

Wrong. People aren't hiring as fast as we're like because demand for goods and services is rising only slowly. Businesses are meeting consumer demand with current staffing levels, adding workers as they need to.

Cost is largely irrelevant. Businesses add workers because it's profitable to meet rising consumer demand. It doesn't matter if their corporate income tax rate is 10% or 40%, if adding workers increases income businesses will hire.

You're making the same old tired, baseless argument all conservatives make: that if taxes are raised then people will stop trying to work hard and make money. The next step is where we ask you to name one person who's ever done that - and then you respond with a non-sequitur, ad-hominem, or start talking about some liberal's penis.

 

[mercury14]

dude, fuck off. Like Im going to debate a dope like you. Shouldnt you be called Veteman a homo right about now??

Kind of a cowardly comment since he asked you a straight question.

 

[fair_warning]

I love it when an illiterate and a retired guy who lives on social welfare talk about hiring.

The irony, the irony!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Wrong. People aren't hiring as fast as we're like because demand for goods and services is rising only slowly. Businesses are meeting consumer demand with current staffing levels, adding workers as they need to.

Cost is largely irrelevant. Businesses add workers because it's profitable to meet rising consumer demand. It doesn't matter if their corporate income tax rate is 10% or 40%, if adding workers increases income businesses will hire.

You're making the same old tired, baseless argument all conservatives make: that if taxes are raised then people will stop trying to work hard and make money. The next step is where we ask you to name one person who's ever done that - and then you respond with a non-sequitur, ad-hominem, or start talking about some liberal's penis.

Rising?

Yes, it's called the Laffer curve and there is a point at which the penalty for working hard affects behavior, as Reagan said, why would I do the third movie each year when the pay would be the same.

The tired old Liberal-Socialist argument is that taxes don't matter, everything else under the sun does, but taxes rising don't affect prices, don't affect behavior and don't affect government spending, which is a pity because the more government spends, the richer we are.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Uncertainty is the answer on the hiring and President Obama attacking Bain Capital does not instill confidence for each business person/company/sector wonders, "Am I next?"

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Numbers yesterday show a contraction in purchasing...



Isn't this the Zandi Recovery Summer of 500K new jobs a month?

Looks more like what some idiot was saying here the last couple of years; Depression-like pattern with occasional bright spots that fade away...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I'm going to reframe the debate!


If I had a hammer...

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/files/2011/04/obama-wide-grin80.jpg
I'd add it to my sickle!

 

[busybody..]

You're out of your mind.

No,

You are

For

Engaging someone who ties you up with BS

 

[mercury14]

Rising?

Yes, it's called the Laffer curve and there is a point at which the penalty for working hard affects behavior, as Reagan said, why would I do the third movie each year when the pay would be the same.

The tired old Liberal-Socialist argument is that taxes don't matter, everything else under the sun does, but taxes rising don't affect prices, don't affect behavior and don't affect government spending, which is a pity because the more government spends, the richer we are.

Taxes do matter. But only indirectly as far as hiring.

Also, keeping the Bush tax cuts for almost everyone while rolling them back to the Clinton-era rates for the very wealthy will not matter much. Going from 35% to a whopping 38.5% for a tiny percentage of people will not send anyone flying off the Laffer Curve. Especially when you consider that the rich don't actually pay their stated rate.

 

[busybody..]

It is obvious NIGGERPOONZANDI is adept of twisting your words

And will make you look like a clown

The only way to engage is how one engages the screaming loon on the corner

 

[mercury14]

You're out of your mind.

You've said it yourself, Vette: businesses will hire when more customers walk through their doors. I rightly called you a demand-sider, which you are.

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

Numbers yesterday show a contraction in purchasing...



Isn't this the Zandi Recovery Summer of 500K new jobs a month?

Looks more like what some idiot was saying here the last couple of years; Depression-like pattern with occasional bright spots that fade away...

Only because gas prices dropped. Are you saying that's a bad thing now? Because you just said rising gas prices are bad. How can both be bad?

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Retail sales declined in May. But that wasn't bad news, because consumers got some relief at the gas pump.

A government report Wednesday showed overall retail spending fell by 0.2% in May, in line with forecasts of economists surveyed by Briefing.com. But the decline was due to consumers spending nearly $1 billion less at gas stations during the month, due to falling gas prices.

Without that drop in spending at the pump, retail sales would have been up 0.1% overall.

 

[mercury14]

That's another reason, but don't try and bullshit us by saying costs and uncertainty don't matter because they do.

I didn't say they don't matter. Just that they're only indirect factors in hiring.

GE's corporate income tax isn't going to change and their health care plan exceeds the standards of Obamacare so they wont be impacted much whether it stands or falls. So why aren't they hiring much?

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Taxes do matter. But only indirectly as far as hiring.

Also, keeping the Bush tax cuts for almost everyone while rolling them back to the Clinton-era rates for the very wealthy will not matter much. Going from 35% to a whopping 38.5% for a tiny percentage of people will not send anyone flying off the Laffer Curve. Especially when you consider that the rich don't actually pay their stated rate.

Look, we understand that the Clinton era was a golden era sitting on top of a bubble, but if you're going to use him, then at least acknowledge that he argued for keeping all the Bush tax rates in place and that a Republican Congress kept him triangulating towards the middle while Obama is still screaming about how Republicans have to stay in the back seat after the sweeping results of 2010.

It's, in this case not the amount, but another brick in the wall signaling the antipathy and hostility of the Democrat Party to the Private Sector that is the actual governor on hiring because we all have come to understand that the Party does not consider this economically a good decision, but purely a decision based on ephemeral political gain; they could give a shit if it cuts down on either hiring or sales, because it is a matter of fairness and we all can see overseas, that when egality, not economics guides you, it is never going to end for unfairness is far too easy to find.

In short, everyone knows, if 38.5% on those greedy, evil, rich bastards, is fair, then certainly 39% is more fair, and 40% is just a rounding error that gets us closer to 50% in the name of the suffering children.

Because the looters, as per Bastiat, have developed a moral code.

The plundered see it clearly.

Obama says it openly.

*Atlas Shrug*

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Only because gas prices dropped. Are you saying that's a bad thing now? Because you just said rising gas prices are bad. How can both be bad?

Falling gas prices would have spurred sales in a healthy economy.

This is an example of liberal writers trying to put a good face on their chosen economic polity.

If you have more money because less of it goes in the tank, then by all standard, confidence should go up and when confidence goes up, then spending goes up. Perhaps its the drop in gas prices that is the insignificant element in our current calculus...

 

[mercury14]

Look, we understand that the Clinton era was a golden era sitting on top of a bubble, but if you're going to use him, then at least acknowledge that he argued for keeping all the Bush tax rates in place and that a Republican Congress kept him triangulating towards the middle while Obama is still screaming about how Republicans have to stay in the back seat after the sweeping results of 2010.

It's, in this case not the amount, but another brick in the wall signaling the antipathy and hostility of the Democrat Party to the Private Sector that is the actual governor on hiring because we all have come to understand that the Party does not consider this economically a good decision, but purely a decision based on ephemeral political gain; they could give a shit if it cuts down on either hiring or sales, because it is a matter of fairness and we all can see overseas, that when egality, not economics guides you, it is never going to end for unfairness is far too easy to find.

In short, everyone knows, if 38.5% on those greedy, evil, rich bastards, is fair, then certainly 39% is more fair, and 40% is just a rounding error that gets us closer to 50% in the name of the suffering children.

Because the looters, as per Bastiat, have developed a moral code.

The plundered see it clearly.

Obama says it openly.

*Atlas Shrug*

I'm not advocating for the Clinton era tax rates. I'm advocating to keep the Bush cuts for almost everyone. There's a huge difference there which you choose to ignore for some reason.

 

[mercury14]

How many people have you hired?

I haven't hired anyone. But if I had, I wouldn't be stupid enough to generalize my personal anecdote to the entire economy.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You've said it yourself, Vette: businesses will hire when more customers walk through their doors. I rightly called you a demand-sider, which you are.

The gates of hell could open up and dead democrat voters could flood business with new customers and they still would not hire because they still have two weeks of waiting before they can even begin to calculate the cost of hiring in the future.

Health Care taxes tacked on to that "insignificant" income tax hike (not to mention hitting the debt ceiling again) might want to make a lot of people get out of the employment business, take an early retirement and just try to hang on to what they've got until death do them part...

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

I haven't hired anyone. But if I had, I wouldn't be stupid enough to generalize my personal anecdote to the entire economy.

Ich denke nicht so.