Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Meanwhile, 48 percent of those not hiring said it was due to concerns about possible rising health care costs, while 46 percent said they were worried about new government regulations.
“The debate over why U.S. small-business owners aren’t hiring more aggressively tends to hinge on whether overall business conditions, including a lack of growth and revenue, are the primary culprit as opposed to the potential cost of healthcare and government regulations. Apparently, both sides of the debate are correct,” Gallup said.
Read more: Poll: Small-business owners fear economic situation - MJ Lee - POLITICO.com
Isn't that what I said -- a single most important reason is the lack of demand -- not the taxes or regulations?
As for the health care costs, they too can only tilt the balance if the sales are slow. So, again, the sufficient demand would be reason enough to expand even in the face of the rising taxes, or health costs.
No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
Isn't that what I said -- a single most important reason is the lack of demand -- not the taxes or regulations?
As for the health care costs, they too can only tilt the balance if the sales are slow. So, again, the sufficient demand would be reason enough to expand even in the face of the rising taxes, or health costs.
No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract. Small business will lead the employment charge. Most, if not all are exempt from working with the government. Demand will change when there is more employment at a higher wage rate. Obama's plans have proven failures in thsi area. Oh, and by the way, early indicators for February are 8.8% unemployment.
You're projecting that the U S unemployment rate will jump from 8.3% to 8.8% in one month.....a short month at that
Isn't that what I said -- a single most important reason is the lack of demand -- not the taxes or regulations?
As for the health care costs, they too can only tilt the balance if the sales are slow. So, again, the sufficient demand would be reason enough to expand even in the face of the rising taxes, or health costs.
No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
That's one fact that they neo-Keynesian voodoo practitioners refuse to wrap their heads around....The actually do believe that breaking windows magically creates jobs.No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
Government spending DRAINS money from the economy. Period.
.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?Isn't that what I said -- a single most important reason is the lack of demand -- not the taxes or regulations?
As for the health care costs, they too can only tilt the balance if the sales are slow. So, again, the sufficient demand would be reason enough to expand even in the face of the rising taxes, or health costs.
No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
That is only true if you are clueless idiot whose missed the past 100 years of historyNo its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
Government spending DRAINS money from the economy.
Government spending with a purpose on national defense is Constitutionally mandated.
It was hire the defense contractors or be over run by the Japanese Empire or Germany.
Again, it was not until the early 50's the US economy actually began to grow at substantial and sustainable rates. WHY? Because the private sector was doing the heavy lifting.
Government spending which needs tax increases in order to be funded, removes cash from the economy and that cash never returns 100%. In fact, more times than not government spending results in a negative return to the taxpayers.
There is absoutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates how much we have to spend on defense.
And nothing you said refutes my point.
Dude.....Shut it.
Preamble
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The authority given the federal government to provide for the common defense is broad.
Your argument is specious.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
And don't answer with " by spending more money"...That is not an answer.
It is to an answer you're just upset because like always you are clueless and getting owned in a debate
I see so according to you the government hasn't spent dime in the past 12 months; so basically yoa are a dumbassBTW, the federal government HAS NO MONEY TO SPEND...
.
ilia's shotgun approach to government spending is terrible. Just throw money all over and it will fix everything. Spend money on fighter aircraft that have been cancelled? Rehire laid off teachers? Why? So we can give the schools more money next year to pay for the teacher they can't afford? But remember, ilia says this is just "temporary".
That is only true if you are clueless idiot whose missed the past 100 years of historyIt does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
Government spending DRAINS money from the economy.
That is only true if you are clueless idiot whose missed the past 100 years of historyGovernment spending DRAINS money from the economy.
Why don't you run us off a list of things manufactured by the government idiot.
ilia's shotgun approach to government spending is terrible. Just throw money all over and it will fix everything. Spend money on fighter aircraft that have been cancelled? Rehire laid off teachers? Why? So we can give the schools more money next year to pay for the teacher they can't afford? But remember, ilia says this is just "temporary".
One thing we know for sure. Any Republican worth their salt would rather take one up the arse than to cut a dime from the defense budget. We have hand held robots and remote controlled planes over Pakistan being flown from Denver and sniper's rifles so big that they have to be hauled to the site. We spend billions on planes which never get into the air and amphibious vehicles which sink while being tested. Dwight Eisenhower warned about this shit over 50 years ago and our politicians ignored his words of wisdom and screwed it up anyway.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?No its not what you said at all. You think government spending will solve all of this. It is only a small minority of companies which can get a government contract.
It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).
That is what should make you sick.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?It does not matter who can get the contract. If the government creates a enough of additional demand (by spending enough), then the companies will hire enough workers to satisfy that demand. And those new workers will start spending as well, creating jobs in small business and everywhere else.
And we have more than enough shovel-ready projects, from building more f-22s to hiring back the laid-off teachers.
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).
That is what should make you sick.
I have a question..How ( in your own words) does government create more demand?
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).
That is what should make you sick.
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
And then, when the owners do want to spend or invest it, the government will have to damage the economy and raise taxes to repay the owners. Great idea!
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
I tell you what should make you sick -- the fact that we have millions of willing and able workers that are sitting idle in misery for years. And the fact that we can make them employed and getting better living by ordering more F-22s (which are damn good planes, BTW).
That is what should make you sick.
By borrowing the idle cash in the private sector (idle means the owners neither want to spend it, nor invest it), and use it to place orders for f-22s and hire teachers.
And then, when the owners do want to spend or invest it, the government will have to damage the economy and raise taxes to repay the owners. Great idea!
First, rising tax rates may not be necessary -- the growing economy will make the debt irrelevant, just as it made WWII debt irrelevant long time ago (we never paid it off).
Second, a fast growing economy will need to be cooled down anyway. It can be achieved by the Fed rising the rates, but if we have a temporary tax rate hike (until we have a reduction in debt), the Fed would simply postpone its rise -- no "damage" to the economy either.
