Page 61 of 67 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast
Results 601 to 610 of 665

Thread: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

  1. #601
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Studies don't make the payroll, pay for the mortgage, create shareholder value. What is more likely to be true are the actual results of businesses and their actions like moving to TX or offshoring.
    But they do tell us what is actually happening. Any one individual cannot know the whole based on their limited experience. To understand the larger picture, you have to beyond personal experience.

    Oh, just for your information:

    In the four years between July 2007 and July 2011, Texas employment grew 2 percent while the US employment fell 4.7 percent. But most of that was due to Texas, not Perry.

    His policies accounted for less than 0.1 percent of Texas’ job growth, calculates Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in a Boston Globe column Thursday. “While Perry can claim to be a faithful representative of the Texas model, he hasn’t outperformed his state’s history,” Mr. Glaeser writes.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/ne...Can-presidents

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #602
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    But they do tell us what is actually happening. Any one individual cannot know the whole based on their limited experience. To understand the larger picture, you have to beyond personal experience.

    Oh, just for your information:

    In the four years between July 2007 and July 2011, Texas employment grew 2 percent while the US employment fell 4.7 percent. But most of that was due to Texas, not Perry.

    His policies accounted for less than 0.1 percent of Texas’ job growth, calculates Harvard economist Edward Glaeser in a Boston Globe column Thursday. “While Perry can claim to be a faithful representative of the Texas model, he hasn’t outperformed his state’s history,” Mr. Glaeser writes.

    Governors don't create many jobs. Can presidents? - CSMonitor.com
    They tell what people think is happening and your opinion as to what is happening but the real process of making decisions is almost soley based upon economic policies, taxes, regulations, work environment. Business is in business to make money and you don't make money in a liberal economic environment of high taxes, high regulations, policies like ACA, and govt. social engineering. You really have no idea what you are talking about and posting mindless studies don't prove anything except someone else's opinion.

  3. #603
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    They tell what people think is happening and your opinion as to what is happening but the real process of making decisions is almost soley based upon economic policies, taxes, regulations, work environment. Business is in business to make money and you don't make money in a liberal economic environment of high taxes, high regulations, policies like ACA, and govt. social engineering. You really have no idea what you are talking about and posting mindless studies don't prove anything except someone else's opinion.

    I'm telling you it's a near universal opinion based on research and logic:

    All of these governmental actors in total may help set conditions, but they can't make a market economy boom on their own — especially in an era of global finance. While presidential fortunes may rise and fall with the economy, expectations that a president can create jobs or make the economy grow are generally overblown.

    "That expectation, that presidents have the wherewithal to manage the economy, has led the economy to control any number of presidents, Republicans and Democrats," says Connelly, the Washington and Lee political scientist. "The economy goes down, and we blame presidents. It sets presidents up for failure."

    Why Obama (And Any President) Fails To Meet Expectations : It's All Politics : NPR

    You merely rant. Try supporting your rants.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  4. #604
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm telling you it's a near universal opinion based on research and logic:

    All of these governmental actors in total may help set conditions, but they can't make a market economy boom on their own — especially in an era of global finance. While presidential fortunes may rise and fall with the economy, expectations that a president can create jobs or make the economy grow are generally overblown.

    "That expectation, that presidents have the wherewithal to manage the economy, has led the economy to control any number of presidents, Republicans and Democrats," says Connelly, the Washington and Lee political scientist. "The economy goes down, and we blame presidents. It sets presidents up for failure."

    Why Obama (And Any President) Fails To Meet Expectations : It's All Politics : NPR

    You merely rant. Try supporting your rants.

    Tell me where the logic is that says any increases in expenses is a good thing for business and doesn't influence decision making process? You think money grows on trees or that a private business can print cash? I have lived and worked in the corporate world and been in the board room, you simply post someone else's opinions as fact

  5. #605
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Tell me where the logic is that says any increases in expenses is a good thing for business and doesn't influence decision making process? You think money grows on trees or that a private business can print cash? I have lived and worked in the corporate world and been in the board room, you simply post someone else's opinions as fact
    There are always increases in expenses. Nothing stays constant. But these things have minor effect. As long as people are buying, people will sell. It's how it works. Now I won't response to nonsensical questions, so try to focus on what I'm actually saying.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #606
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    There are always increases in expenses. Nothing stays constant. But these things have minor effect. As long as people are buying, people will sell. It's how it works. Now I won't response to nonsensical questions, so try to focus on what I'm actually saying.
    Boo, sorry, but I have had my say with you and you simply cannot admit you are wrong. Anything that increases business costs have to be addressed by the company and higher taxes, more regulations, ACA drive up costs and will force a business to look elsewhere.

  7. #607
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    Boo, sorry, but I have had my say with you and you simply cannot admit you are wrong. Anything that increases business costs have to be addressed by the company and higher taxes, more regulations, ACA drive up costs and will force a business to look elsewhere.
    So, you won't support your comments? color me shocked.

    Anyway, from the conservative magazine Forbes:

    If you think a change in marginal tax rates is going to change the mind of an entrepreneur, you simply don’t understand the mind of an entrepreneur. We are driven by far more elemental desires.

    Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs - Forbes

    So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.

    Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes

    And then there's this:

    "The notion that reducing the taxes corporations pay on their profits will create new jobs in the U.S. is just not borne out by the evidence we examined," said Katherine McFate, President and CEO of the Center for Effective Government and one of the co-authors of the report.

    The report, The Corporate Tax Rate Debate: Lower Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Linked to Job Creation, examined the tax rates paid and jobs created by 60 large, profitable corporations. The analysis found that the 30 companies that paid the highest tax rates added nearly 200,000 jobs over a five-year period. Those companies that paid little or no taxes (and in many cases received large refunds) shed about 51,000 jobs during that same period.

    Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Tied to Job Creation, New Study Finds | Center for Effective Government

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #608
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    So, you won't support your comments? color me shocked.

    Anyway, from the conservative magazine Forbes:

    If you think a change in marginal tax rates is going to change the mind of an entrepreneur, you simply don’t understand the mind of an entrepreneur. We are driven by far more elemental desires.

    Tax Cuts Don't Create Jobs - Forbes

    So tax cuts have not spurred big companies to create jobs. But what about start ups? Based on my October 2010 interviews with 17 start up CEOs, my conclusion is that not a single one of them would create a job based on tax cuts. All of them told me that their decision to create a new job would be based on whether the long-term cost of that new job would be offset by higher revenues and profits.

    Do Tax Cuts Create Jobs? - Forbes

    And then there's this:

    "The notion that reducing the taxes corporations pay on their profits will create new jobs in the U.S. is just not borne out by the evidence we examined," said Katherine McFate, President and CEO of the Center for Effective Government and one of the co-authors of the report.

    The report, The Corporate Tax Rate Debate: Lower Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Linked to Job Creation, examined the tax rates paid and jobs created by 60 large, profitable corporations. The analysis found that the 30 companies that paid the highest tax rates added nearly 200,000 jobs over a five-year period. Those companies that paid little or no taxes (and in many cases received large refunds) shed about 51,000 jobs during that same period.

    Taxes on Corporate Profits Not Tied to Job Creation, New Study Finds | Center for Effective Government
    As usual you miss the point and ignore reality, The Bush tax cuts went mostly to individuals giving them more money to spend and that drove corporate economic activity just like it did during the Reagan term and that is what creates the atmosphere for economic activity. Everytime there is a tax cut economic growth goes up and that creates demand for more jobs. You simply are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who doesn't seem to understand business activity. The engine that drives our economy are the small businesses not the major corporations so the study is made on the wrong entity.

    My question remains, why exactly would you support sending more money to a Federal Govt. that has generated a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse vs giving it to the economic engine that drives the economy, the small businesses and the consumer?

    Again, we aren't talking about large businesses, we are talking about small businesses that drive the economy however both small and large businesses are going to locate in lower tax states, why?

    What is it about big govt. that generates your kind of passion and support? What benefit do you get out of businesses paying a higher tax?

  9. #609
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    As usual you miss the point and ignore reality, The Bush tax cuts went mostly to individuals giving them more money to spend and that drove corporate economic activity just like it did during the Reagan term and that is what creates the atmosphere for economic activity. Everytime there is a tax cut economic growth goes up and that creates demand for more jobs. You simply are nothing more than a big govt. liberal who doesn't seem to understand business activity. The engine that drives our economy are the small businesses not the major corporations so the study is made on the wrong entity.

    My question remains, why exactly would you support sending more money to a Federal Govt. that has generated a 17.3 trillion dollar debt and is riddled with waste, fraud, and abuse vs giving it to the economic engine that drives the economy, the small businesses and the consumer?

    Again, we aren't talking about large businesses, we are talking about small businesses that drive the economy however both small and large businesses are going to locate in lower tax states, why?

    What is it about big govt. that generates your kind of passion and support? What benefit do you get out of businesses paying a higher tax?
    I've missed nothing. Pick your taxes, and there is no evidence to support your claim. Here is the Bush taxes specifically:

    The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.

    The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.

    15captial-graph-thumbWide.jpg

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/op...ic-growth.html

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #610
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,264

    Re: Obamacare enrollment hits 7 million

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I've missed nothing. Pick your taxes, and there is no evidence to support your claim. Here is the Bush taxes specifically:

    The defining economic policy of the last decade, of course, was the Bush tax cuts. President George W. Bush and Congress, including Mr. Ryan, passed a large tax cut in 2001, sped up its implementation in 2003 and predicted that prosperity would follow.

    The economic growth that actually followed — indeed, the whole history of the last 20 years — offers one of the most serious challenges to modern conservatism. Bill Clinton and the elder George Bush both raised taxes in the early 1990s, and conservatives predicted disaster. Instead, the economy boomed, and incomes grew at their fastest pace since the 1960s. Then came the younger Mr. Bush, the tax cuts, the disappointing expansion and the worst downturn since the Depression.

    15captial-graph-thumbWide.jpg

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/op...ic-growth.html
    You really are something, a true liberal ideologue, Bush tax cuts were in two parts, the first was in 2001 and the second was in 2003, the first one happened before 9/11 and of course 9/11 hurt badly, then the real growth hit after July 2003 when the rest of the tax cut was implemented but of course that fact escapes you. You seem to have a serious problem with people keeping more of what they earn and a business doing the same thing. I wonder why?

    Your chart is typical leftwing propaganda that ignores context. Republicans took control of the entire Congress in January 2003 and from 2003-2006 we had strong economic growth and job creation. Bush lost because of the war, not the economy and the short thinking American public ignored the successes in Iraq in 2005-2006 and turned the govt. over to the Democrats

    From BEA.gov

    Line * 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
    1 Gross domestic product 10625.3 10980.2 11512.2 12277 13095.4 13857.9 14480.3
    Taking the GDP from 10.9 to 14.5 is strong economic growth

    Taking employment from 137 million to 146 million is something Obama can only dream about

    2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
    2003 137417 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
    2004 138472 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
    2005 140245 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
    2006 143150 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
    2007 146028 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273

Page 61 of 67 FirstFirst ... 11515960616263 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •