Maybe that was initially the idea but it has turned into a bad joke
Mostly because taxes are historically low, and Republicans like it that way. Taxes on the rich are considered class warfare. Wealth is concentrating and the only way to keep the economy moving along is to get the majority (spenders) to borrow. As a percentage of GDP, debts are getting pretty high, but they are not astronomical. If you remember back 15 years they were predicting surpluses coming out of our ears. Hence the bush tax cuts.
Trying to bring back manufacturing would only work if our product design and marketing companies did not have to compete with foreign companies that do outsource production.
I think Christie was hoping it would make himself look good, but he was a real long shot from the get go. Rubio really should have come out ahead there. Half of Christie's claim to fame is running a post storm disaster recovery effort. I really don't see how that prepares a person to be President. Part of the robo line actually applied to Christie's attack. The part about Obama knowing what he is doing was a good counter point to the idea that a first term Senator is too green. Anyway, Rubio made a huge mess of it, and looked like an idiot. It will be interesting to see how Bush and Kasich fare in SC.
Well, the idea is to encourage people to spend when facing a recession or slow economic times, and encourage savings when the economy is good. The latter choice is a harder sell, b/c when times are good all anyone wants to do is party. Bush II was the epitome of this.
If you focus on the US in that chart, you will not see much credit growth at all. I don't know exactly what's going on with private debt in China. On a per capita basis, private debt in China is much much lower than it is in the US. On a per unit GDP basis, China still has much less private debt than the US. So, it's clear that the Chinese private debt expansion cannot continue at that rate, they are not necessarily in a bad place.
Essentially blue pill men such as yourself are living in the matrix.
I don't believe all of the stats as they are presented (e.g. 77% of salary or whatever it is). I'm sure that those stats are inflated, but I do see inequities on both sides of the gender wars. To me, you seem to be willfully focusing on the half of the inequities that bother you.
1. I'm not undersexed. I'm Al and my wife is Peg. Yes really.
2. I'm kinda fat but it's very attractive fat.
lol. Your wife must be awful kind to you if you believe it's an attractive fat. If you are referring to the Bundys, maybe you should get some bloodwork done. Lack of sex drive may be the sign of a circulatory system in decline. Next thing down that road is impotence, then heart disease.
Really - aol is still running a content site? Anyway, if you look at the chart of UK and Eurozone, you will see what Krugman has been arguing (and iwog has been telling to indigenous) for the last 6 yrs or so. Austerity has not been working for those areas. We've had a weak recovery, but it's been much better than the governments who have gone down the austerity road. Anyway, this trend of debt contraction in those areas has been going on for a while. I don't really see a huge recent change. The fact that stocks have gotten high in the US is more concerning to me.
There were probably shenanigans like kick backs involved in these companies getting such good deals. Prosecutors should go after all involved and try to throw out as many of these deals as possible. If republicans care about their constituents, they should use the same fervor that they use when going after the Clintons.
If you and your network wants to spend time trolling the internet to find examples of women getting away with shit, that's your prerogative. I'm not going to debate you about your pet issue every time you hit pay dirt.
You probably haven't noticed this, but I don't go around starting threads about men's and women's rights or posting specific stories of people behaving badly. The only one I started was to discuss TRP and MRAs in general, which I pretty much didn't know existed a year ago. At this point, I've about lost interest in debating the subject. It's clear that there are quite a few red pillers on PatNet, so I suppose, I'm going to have to just ignore the rants. Carry on if you like.
Bernie's crowd all held up political signs and listened to him talk policy. Trumps crowd held up cell phones and iPods and listened to him brag and drone on about nothing. Weird.
Congrats to Kasich.
Hillary can't buy a young persons vote. 86% or something like that went to Bernie.
I thought that Saudi Arabia was running out of cheap oil, and moving towards more secondary extraction. It's not clear how long they can keep things up at these prices. The strategy may be to sell it at whatever price they can get before climate change treaties and alternative technologies drive the value down further.
Low oil prices are good for buyers, bad for sellers / suppliers. It's that simple. Some people are net buyers, and some net sellers. How it affects you depends on how much stuff you consume, how much you drive, and how much / what energy stocks you have.
Huge shifts from low prices to high prices are bad for cash strapped commuters who were stupid enough to buy a gas guzzler. Huge shifts from high to low hurt all energy producers (alternative as well as traditional), and car companies trying to market alternative or fuel efficient cars.
Long term low gas prices combined with CAFE standards will drop prices of high mpg cars and increase prices of low mpg cars, which is a transfer of income that prevents buyers of new gas guzzlers from benefiting from low fuel prices.
As far as countries go, it gets a little more complicated. If a country is a net importer, low prices are good. If a country is a net exporter, low prices are bad. The complication is determining if a country is a net importer or exporter. When oil prices are high enough, the US is a net exporter. If they get too low for too long, the US is (going to be) a net importer.
Some people like Ted Cruz are the overambitious types and pick friends based on who can help them in life. Others associate with many people both higher and lower on the socioeconomic ladder. By associating across lines, people get to have both mentor / mentee relationships. This system punishes people for associating with people lower on the socioeconomic ladder. If people catch on to this, the unintended consequences should be interesting.
If you look at ultra endurance events, there are hardly any black athletes. This is true in grand tour bike racing and running of 50 or more miles. Is it something inherent or lack of interest? Hard to say. Same goes for QBs.
When I was growing up, there were hardly any black QBs. When they did start coming in, for whatever reason, they on average played QB much differently than the typical white guy. I heard tons of comments about this in the 80s and 90s, and most of those comments were disparaging toward the intelligence of black people. Of course everyone just wants a winner, but that doesn't stop people from speculating. And, many people use whatever they can to pontificate on whether or not black people are as smart as white people.
The idea that women need to vote for Hillary is ridiculous. This obvious split with Hillary and Bernie has to do with age. If you look at their policy difference and level of idealism, this split is obvious.
Policy) senior citizens already have free health care. That is, they already paid for it earlier in their career to some degree through medicare taxes. Young people have years to pay into that system with no benefits. So, they are more inclined to want a national health care system. They also are living / have lived through the overly expensive state of secondary education in the US at the moment, and know this system is fucked.
Idealism) Young people are always more idealistic, and this makes them more inclined to side with Bernie. This is obvious.
As far as women sticking together, those old feminists (Albright & Steinem) grew up in a different world as today's young. I'm guessing that they lived through much more sexism than today's youth. Plus, they certainly hit more 'glass ceilings' than young people who haven't attained much success yet. While it is certainly nice to some degree to have a black guy or a women or an atheist become president, it certainly isn't a top priority. All of those things have or will come. The atheist will probably be last.
From my perspective, there are three ideas in the OP.
1) People tend to agree with their peers, and consequently groups of peers start to share similar views on a number of topics. This seems to me to be hard wired into us. It happens a lot on the level of small group of friends. It happens more or less in larger groups. People take sides adamantly a lot in national politics, but I think there is something else going on here. Here, I think it is more driven by listening to sources that tend to be marketing wings of one party or another.
2) You go off and apply this to Islam. Well, here, we're talking about our country against another country, which is #1 applied to yet a larger group. In this case, we are on distinct sides with a shared military fighting on our behalf.
3) The text (literal things that people say) and subtext (language they use) has been written about on this board. I agree with you that the subtext / language is very important. It does depend on a landscape where subgroups have an us against them mentality already established.
The OP wasn't really about an independent contractor vs W2, and TD probably has experience with W2 employee paperwork by now. The question is about how to project earnings. I think that DieBOA... brings up a reasonable time span (2 years) to get a good idea of what the business is doing (expected income per quarter & typical variation). But, in the mean time, you are going to have to guess, and the employees just have to understand that as a new business going full time would be somewhat risky. It also depends on your own income needs and personal financial flexibility.
I think that some lenders focus on medical practices and perhaps even your specialty. These people would be good to ask. I know with veterinary medicine, there are lenders who focus on this area. They have a lot of knowledge based on the typical trajectory of other similar practices. Having a line of credit might be helpful in a business where cash flow fluctuates a lot. Also, accrual accounting might be beneficial if your cash revenues are likely to fluctuate a lot while your costs are fixed. This is especially true if the work you do is more consistent than the cash from billing.
As far as risk goes, there are short term fluctuations (random ones you mentioned), possibly seasonal fluctuations (not sure in your line of work), and longer term economy fluctuations. I don't know how long term fluctuations are going to hit your business. You could look for peoples experiences from 2008 / 2009 to see what kind of impact it made. Your customers are not using insurance, so either have a lot of disposable income, can borrow against a house, or have equities to sell. I would think that the large income customers are the least affected by the economy and stock market. If there are no real big seasonal fluctuations, then you don't need as many months to get an idea of how much month to month variation you are experiencing. If the seasonal variations are large, it takes two years to get two data points.
These are some things I would think about in your situation.