• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

WSJ on Stimulus 3.0

"The unfortunate reality is that even if Republicans gave Mr. Obama everything he wanted, the impact on growth would be modest at best. Washington can most help the economy with serious spending restraint, permanent tax-rate cuts, regulatory relief and repeal of ObamaCare. What won't help growth is more temporary, targeted political conjuring."

Regardless of the problem, the answer always appears to be more tax cuts and less regulation.
 
fuheel said:
"The unfortunate reality is that even if Republicans gave Mr. Obama everything he wanted, the impact on growth would be modest at best. Washington can most help the economy with serious spending restraint, permanent tax-rate cuts, regulatory relief and repeal of ObamaCare. What won't help growth is more temporary, targeted political conjuring."

Regardless of the problem, the answer always appears to be more tax cuts and less regulation.
Click to expand...

The answer certainly isn't another stimulus package.
 
TR1982 said:
The answer certainly isn't another stimulus package.
Click to expand...

Right. The answer is always more tax cuts, and less regulation. Tax rates are already historically low? Clearly time to cut taxes again.
 
You mean the same WSJ that was quoted yesterday as saying oil subisidies are out done by green subisidies 50-1?

This would mean green subsidies would be funded to the tune of over $180B/year for the next ten years.

The WSJ has gone from an honored paper to being a partisan grocery store checkout rag.
 
TR1982 said:
The answer certainly isn't another stimulus package.
Click to expand...

The answer was larger stimulus packages a while back, along with end of Bush tax cuts on those over 250,000, creation of a millionaire's and billionaire's bracket, meaningful cuts, including defense cuts, and getting out of Iraq and Afghanistan. That was the correct answer a while back.
 
TR1982 said:
The answer certainly isn't another stimulus package.
Click to expand...

So we should wait to fix schoolsd, roads and bridges until their either fall down, cost much more due materials, cost much more due to having to pay higher wages or until the cost of money grows.

Opposing this is the definition of myopia. What is being repaired will have to be repaired. It is irresponsible not to do it now.
 
deregulation? When did American business become such crybabies?

you know, the Deacs could make a lot more baskets if they weren't limited to two steps on a layup. It only makes sense, right? And we could get a lot more points if we didn't have to dribble at all.....so unfair
 
RJKarl said:
You mean the same WSJ that was quoted yesterday as saying oil subisidies are out done by green subisidies 50-1?

This would mean green subsidies would be funded to the tune of over $180B/year for the next ten years.

The WSJ has gone from an honored paper to being a partisan grocery store checkout rag.
Click to expand...

But this is an opinion piece. You see the same biased approach in the opinion section of the New York Times for the other side. Big deal.
 
Last edited:
The WSJ is a rag. It's a shame what has happened to this once great publication.
 
WakeandBake said:
deregulation? When did American business become such crybabies?

you know, the Deacs could make a lot more baskets if they weren't limited to two steps on a layup. It only makes sense, right? And we could get a lot more points if we didn't have to dribble at all.....so unfair
Click to expand...


Oh no. You don't understand. If there were less rules and/or officiating, all the players and schools would just play nice and proper like. Because human nature is just that'a way.

Well, now that I think about it, I don't think human nature is really like that. But I'm still all for as much deregulation of everything as possible. Especially business. Because the government is basically bad and we always need less of it. And those business people are not like normal humans. Without being compelled by outside influences, they'll just do what's best for their country and workers. That's just their nature. They are not greedy and selfish. Well, OK, maybe they are. But that's "good", right? Least that's what I've heard. And I don't want to think about it anymore.


repjesus22.gif
 
I'm not sure that Murdoch and his millions of minions will be happy until there are no rules and no taxes
 
ConnorEl said:
Oh no. You don't understand. If there were less rules and/or officiating, all the players and schools would just play nice and proper like. Because human nature is just that'a way.

Well, now that I think about it, I don't think human nature is really like that. But I'm still all for as much deregulation of everything as possible. Especially business. Because the government is basically bad and we always need less of it. And those business people are not like normal humans. Without being compelled by outside influences, they'll just do what's best for their country and workers. That's just their nature. They are not greedy and selfish. Well, OK, maybe they are. But that's "good", right? Least that's what I've heard. And I don't want to think about it anymore.


repjesus22.gif
Click to expand...

Republican Jesus RULES!!!
 
I think the gist of the article was not necessarily that such and such WILL work, but that we know what WON'T work. It would seem to be a basic concept, but this administration apparently can't get its head around the fact that short term inducements do not lead to long term hiring.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top