Can somebody answer this simple question?

LOL wrote: None of the bozo's in DC create private jobs. Most informed people know that and ignore the BS

Then why support Romney and not the Libertarian?

I don't support anyone yet. Check back in Nov.

jmc wrote:

LOL wrote: Well jmc did you get your answer?

Not really but people are still posting, Otis came close.

lol @ Otis coming close

Guys..Its real simple. All of our consumer demands are being met, if you want to create more jobs we will have to create more demand and business will hire more people to meet the demand. That means people have to spend more.... It's called supply and demand guys so you see why wildly cheering 50,000 teachers in Wisconsin taking pay cuts is beyond idiotic.

jmc wrote: Just a couple comments, The reason business is not expanding has to do with a lack of consumer demand. As long as working people are uncertain they will buy less, business will always respond to demand for their products not tax rates.
Businesses would be more efficient if they were out of the health care biz.
High producers already keep most of what they make and I never met an entrepreneur that obsessed about tax rates.
Term limits sound good but I should be able to vote for the best qualified candidate regardless of arbitrary limits.Agree on conscription.
Otis you sound like a RINO to me. Lots of Gov. rules.

Businesses are note expanding due to lack of demand - Citizens have less and less money to spend because they don't have jobs.

People who earn the most already keep the most - Did you skip the part where I said reform and simplify the tax codes? Everyone should pay a flat tax and a smaller more efficient Gubment will need less money to operate.

Healthcare costs are out of control because private industry runs it - Are you telling me that the bloated, red tape, administriva laden Gubment could run the healthcare industry better?! Do a little research on how well socialized medicine works in Canada and Europe. Healthcare costs are out of control but reforming the industry and holding providers responsible for costs that continue to grow exponentially on an annual basis is a much better solution.

Term limits make it impossible to elect the best candidate - If the best candidate has already held office to the limit of his or her terms then let them stand aside. New leadership in a smaller Gubment should result in a more direct transfer of the people's will becoming law. Elected leaders that don't perform can't stagnate and survive by getting re-elected.

Mandatory conscription - This is the one item I expect you to balk at; we do have something in common. Service to others and recognition that there are things more important that yourself is an important life lesson.

Call me a RINO? I have been called a lot worse than that to my face today, say whatever you want. You are entitled to your opinion.

Your shit is so old Otis

:blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah: :blahblah:

Shut up

otisptoadwater wrote: In our current economy are businesses anxious to hire? Do business owners feel confident that their businesses will continue to be profitable? I maintain the answer to both questions is no. Why? The Gubment is intruding on businesses by changing out tax codes and dangling new laws in front on them like Obumacare that will make it difficult if not impossible for small and medium businesses to survive.

Correct Otis. The simple supply demand argument leaves out business and consumer confidence in the future. Example: I had a vendor manufacturer quote 12 week lead times for a product we order. I asked why so long? Answer- their business demand was increasing but they were not hiring or expanding yet, due to lack of confidence in this recovery. So they just take orders and build up a backlog, take longer to deliver the goods. The chaos, debt and "kick the can" mentality at the national level does negatively affect confidence in the economy and hiring. Its not just simple supply and demand.

Raise The Dead wrote:

jmc wrote:

LOL wrote: Well jmc did you get your answer?

Not really but people are still posting, Otis came close.

lol @ Otis coming close

Guys..Its real simple. All of our consumer demands are being met, if you want to create more jobs we will have to create more demand and business will hire more people to meet the demand. That means people have to spend more.... It's called supply and demand guys so you see why wildly cheering 50,000 teachers in Wisconsin taking pay cuts is beyond idiotic.

Then according to your logic the way out of the mess is to give each teacher a million dollars a year. That will increase consumer demand right? Or do W's idea and send every household $1000 that will increase consumer spending.

What a bunch of bull hockey! If a president could truly influence the economy, it would never be bad.

2wlady wrote: What a bunch of bull hockey! If a president could truly influence the economy, it would never be bad.

I see. Regulations suggested by the President and then acted upon by the House and Congress and passed doesn't effect industry, business and small business. I see. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

2wlady wrote: What a bunch of bull hockey! If a president could truly influence the economy, it would never be bad.

And if what you say is true... then "what" is all Bush's fault? That's all I've heard about the economy from Obama and the Democrats. Please explain?