Welcome to NexusFi: the best trading community on the planet, with over 150,000 members Sign Up Now for Free
Genuine reviews from real traders, not fake reviews from stealth vendors
Quality education from leading professional traders
We are a friendly, helpful, and positive community
We do not tolerate rude behavior, trolling, or vendors advertising in posts
We are here to help, just let us know what you need
You'll need to register in order to view the content of the threads and start contributing to our community. It's free for basic access, or support us by becoming an Elite Member -- see if you qualify for a discount below.
-- Big Mike, Site Administrator
(If you already have an account, login at the top of the page)
The other guy from the other side of the argument can say the same thing. The merits of the equivalency is immaterial. The point is, human beings make decision according to their self interests. If your self interests are different then mine, I will make a different decision then you. That does not make my decision wrong, or foolish, etc. It is based on my and your natural self preservation instinct. Handouts help me survive, less taxes help you thrive, they are both governed by self preservation, they are both valid reasons for your decisions.
I'm not disputing whether people act out of their own self-interest. My point is that there's a difference between robbing Peter to pay Paul or working to make the pie bigger for both Peter and Paul.
My point was aimed to the people ridiculing the person voting for the candidate that they believe gave them a cell phone. A cell phone means nothing to you because even your cat has one. To a person in another life circumstance, a cell phone helps them survive today, tomorrow and next week, so why would they vote for anyone else? They will leave the debate of Peter and Paul to those who feel they will be negatively impacted. Each will vote according to the direct impact in their own lives.
democracy is a horrible form of government, however, there is no better alternative...ha
actually it makes more sense than anything else.. the priority of the mass "should" always outweigh the priority of the few... Just let history be the guide and you'll have plenty of references and why revolutions take place..
If you owned a company that was on the decline and in huge debt.
Who would you hire to fix it?
Someone who has never run a business, has no job creating record and never made a dime that did not some how relate to politics
or
Someone who has not only run profitable business but has started them creating thousands upon thousands of jobs in the process.
Pick
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
I own a business outside of trading. Because of bad liberal anti-business policies coming out of Washington I will not hire anyone. To much uncertainty to take the risk. I could actually use some more employees right now but will not hire. Now if Obama is elected and is able to ram through the rest of his agenda --carbon credits, no chance to overturn Obamacare, higher taxes etc there is a actually a good chance I may have to let people go. Not being political with this statement just a hard cold reality.
Here is the kicker I know many business owners and they will tell you the exact same thing.
Now someone loses their job and ends up getting a government check instead of a decent paying job working for me. I try to pay my employees well and believe as a business owner in seeing other people who work for me prosper. So is that person now better off getting a minimal government check? How does this type of system help the masses? It does not it lowers standard of living for all. Most jobs in this country are created by the small business owner and this scenario is and will be repeated millions of times over.
"The day I became a winning trader was the day it became boring. Daily losses no longer bother me and daily wins no longer excited me. Took years of pain and busting a few accounts before finally got my mind right. I survived the darkness within and now just chillax and let my black box do the work."
With that line of reasoning Donald Trump would make another good candidate and Ronald Reagan got lucky.. and the business acumen of the Bushes should have really helped the economy.. Looking out for the mass comes with the job description of the president even if it appears socialistic, you can't blame a president for trying.. that's his job..
Again, history has tried many things and can be referenced.. Let's use some historical references to support the reasoning..
Would it be fair to say the demand for your service/product(s) has not yet reached a point where you HAVE TO hire? If this thresh-hold was broken, would you still fail to hire additional help, and instead rely on the employees you have today to work more, or what other option would you have?
Is supply/demand what drives hiring, or additional funds on your side from things such as tax breaks, or increased savings, or more certainty on what 'could' come in the future?
Gary
As consistently profitable traders.. "We get paid to wait, and we wait to get paid."
