Not exact matches
Economic study tells us for every dollar invested in a local community, it generates at least 5 dollars in
spending — which is the
biggest argument against the way Tribal casinos are set up where the most money leaves the local community permanently.
Now with the striker options running dry he is blaming a lack of availability of talented players and extortion - like prices... yet smaller teams keep unearthing these gems, which in theory we could do, in hope that it could possibly pay off and the
argument being if we are a «
big club» and have the money, why hasn't he
spent it??
Most of the loudest
arguments inevitably rely on the «
spend big» and try and outspend the others theory.
For us to be even in the
argument with what they've
spent just goes to show you we've made a couple of
big strides in the right direction.
Instead the Chancellor's opponents must put the case for civilised levels of public
spending in general and a more flexible approach towards the deficit, a
bigger argument that would legitimise their opposition to specific cuts.