Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
skeptic

What is wrong with some of us in this country?

Recommended Posts

Brew, I agree. It's all basic.

Many business owners were waiting for the outcome of the elections to gauge the economic outlook for the near future.

That being decided, they will adjust accordingly.

The other comments here are just emotional bs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yah, Brewmeister, I think you're readin' too deep into skeptic's post.

 

He was makin' a point that businesses that cut jobs immediately after an election in a fit of pique are just bein' goofs, and of course they are. That's not good business sense, that's throwin' a tantrum like a 5-year-old.

 

Good business sense would be to wait and see how da final regulations come out, where da loopholes are, and carefully calculatin' what makes most sense. As CalicoPenn points out, da issues with coal at the moment have little to do with regulation and everything to do with da explosion of natural gas supply. Once yeh have a gas well sunk, yeh don't have to pay miners to bring the stuff up, eh? Variable cost is just a fraction of that of coal per unit energy, so of course da coal business is goin' to lay off people. It should. That's economic efficiency. It's tough on coal investors and workers, but them's the breaks.

 

But let me say somethin' about da modern Republican / business school nonsense that yeh opened with. Da notion that human beings are nuthin' more than industrial inputs was never a part of classical conservativism. We're a Christian bunch, us conservatives. There was always an expectation that yeh had a moral obligation to take care of your own and treat folks decently. People would pride themselves on treatin' their workers well, and on buildin' companies responsibly through hard work and providin' value.

 

Da notion that humans are just industrial inputs and that yeh are a Business Titan by leveraging companies up to extract "value" is somethin' that came out of da junk bond bunch in the 80s. Most good businessmen at da time though they were a bunch of [expletive deleted]. Nowadays, those leveraged acquisition turkeys, Romney among 'em, are considered Captains of Industry, even though they haven't ever built a factory or a product, eh? They've just robbed da earned equity of others' labor.

 

That ain't conservativism. It's highbrow theft. Liberals properly object to it because part of what it's stealin' is da sweat equity investment of da workers, who build a company only to be left on da street. Conservatives should also object because that kind of leveraging weakens strong companies and keeps 'em from reinvesting, puttin' America behind foreign countries. It's tradin' long term steady growth for short-term boom and bust, and true conservatives are good businessmen who work for long term steady growth.

 

Many business owners were waiting for the outcome of the elections to gauge the economic outlook for the near future.

 

Nonsense. That's what financiers are lookin' at. Maybe some defense contractors who suck off da government teat. Real businessmen know that da economic outlook in the mid- to long- term has very little to do with da politicians. It has far more to do with stability and da economic health of consumers.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the problems with ACA, is that folks do not know what's in it despite what some Congress Critters have said about passing it in order to know what's in it. true story, a few months after it was passed, we had an employees' meeting with the CEO about the state of the hospital. During the questions and answers portion, one guy point blank asked how ACA will affect us, and the CEO "I don't know," and went on to explain that vast sections of the law pertained to DHHS rules and regs that would be forthcoming.

 

I got some freinds who are small business owners, and all have said that ACA is going to cost them so much that in order to keep the business as is, they have to let people go and not grow their businesses. On person talked about hiring folks as contractors in order to keep the business he just got started operable. And no he is not a multimillionaire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got some freinds who are small business owners, and all have said that ACA is going to cost them so much that in order to keep the business as is, they have to let people go and not grow their businesses.

 

Yah, there's a lot of fearmongerin' on this, but I'm not sure how anyone could make this claim yet, since none of da Exchanges are set up and da final regs aren't in place.

 

Small businesses with less than 50 FTE employees aren't affected at all, except that they might be able to offer health coverage for their employees through tax credits and other features. I wouldn't call a business with more than 50 full time employees a small one, eh? 93% of da businesses in da U.S. fall below that number.

 

Da problem will be with businesses that are just a bit bigger than 50 full-timers, or growing toward that number. Then life gets more complicated, particularly if it's a business with a lot of low-paid, low-skill employees. Yeh can certainly imagine that 50-employee threshold becomin' a bit of a barrier, eh? Perhaps cheaper to have multiple 49-person companies than a bigger one. This is one of da areas that could use some thoughtful adjustment.

 

What *should* also happen is that da ACA should contain general premiums for a stretch as a lot of lower-risk young people are added to da insurance rolls and uninsured folks don't have to use emergency care so much. That should yield savings for big employers, who can opt to grow. That's a longer-term effect, though.

 

In short, this thing is a bit of a turkey. A complicated mess that will take quite a bit of time to work out. I was opposed to ACA. But in a lot of ways it's no different than any policy shift. It will cause some disruption as it's implemented and there'll be some confusion, but it isn't the end of da world. If da Republicans give up bein' da Party of No and collaborate a bit on some of da fixes, we might end up with somethin' fairly workable.

 

Beavah

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense Beav?

 

Right now thousands of small business owners (with more than 50 employees) are deciding how many full time employees are going to be reduced to part time or let go to avoid paying mandated health care or the associated fines.

 

"That's what financiers are lookin' at."

No that's what small business owners, who finance their own ventures are looking at.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah.. Nice distinction of what being a Republican use to be.. That was the time, I voted more Republican then Democrat myself.

 

Health care reform, use to be in the Republican platform, when the Republican platform was something to be proud of.. Now it seems the Democrats are not only carrying their own agenda, but what use to be the old Republicans agenda, because it was dropped by the Republican party and someone had to carry the mantle..

 

Agree with you also that if a buisnessman is reacting today over his fears of when Obama-care kicks in in 2014, yet really doesn't know all the details, or is not employing over 50 people, they are over-reacting in order to have their tantrum heard and felt as a declaration of "See, this is what happens when you elect someone I don't like!"

 

There is talk in the upcoming discussions of what to do for small buisness (I mean small, not the Bain Corps of the world.) or to promote keeping buisness in the US rather then offshoring.. If that comes before 2014, it might offset the hassle of Obamacare or at least lower the sting of it.. But, they aren't willing to wait..

 

Coal is another matter.. Perhaps coal executives were hoping the Romney administration was going to kill enough of the green energy alternatives to increase the demand for coal.. But sorry, that is the wrong direction for this country to go in and will not position it well in the future.. Horse & buggy had to make way for automobiles.. Trains had to make way for Planes.. Typewriters had to make way for computers, Coal has to make way for newer energy alternatives like wind, solar and natural gas.. This might have some basis for the executive to state it is because of who we elected.. But, it doesn't change the fact that Obama is on the right side of history in this arguement and Romney was not. We can't hold our future hostage to the past in order to keep a dieing buisness going.. These executives have to figure out how to harness the future.. From some commercials put out, it seems some of the oil companies are now exploring solar and wind alternatives.. They are trying to find ways to embrace the future and be a part of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Right now thousands of small business owners (with more than 50 employees) are deciding how many full time employees are going to be reduced to part time or let go to avoid paying mandated health care or the associated fines."

 

I hear this a lot - from pundits, and from people repeating what the pundits are saying. Know who you don't hear it a lot from? Business Owners. At least the business owners who want to keep their employees around and understand that they spent thousands of dollars to train each employee and know that providing health care coverage to their employees is a cheap way to ensure their investment. I'm sure if you dig around, you can find business owners who have more than 50 employees that don't provide a means to insure their employees - but they're going to be a very small minority.

 

Most small business owners (the true small business owners - I agree with Beavah - over 50 and you aren't small anymore) look for deals on insurance coverage for their employees as well - again, they know the value of protecting their investment, and employees are, regardless of Brew's statement that they are just a resource, are an investment. If you were a business owner, wouldn't you want to make sure the guy you just spent hours on training how to be a mold maker doesn't jump to another mold maker who offers insurance? Wouldn't you want to make sure the gal you spent hours training on how to dispatch shipments has a way to make sure that the cold she catches is treated properly rather than letting it progress to a full on pneumonia that could keep her out for weeks?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah, why are you ascribing politics to my econ 101, and did you not read the second part?

 

In the literal sense, workers ARE nothing more than input. Smart business owners understand they are more. And business owners are not unilaterally one party or the other.

 

As to the rest, I'm not reading into the posts, I'm reading what's in the posts, and the verbiage is pretty clear.(This message has been edited by Brewmeister)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that reality is not s just one factor, i.e. only politics, only economics, only history, only medicine, ad nasueum. rather reality is a the combination of everything and how they interact with each other.

 

So politics will affect economics which will effect medicine, etc etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the literal sense, workers ARE nothing more than input.

 

In da literal sense? Really? ;)

 

Nonsense. Whether you're talkin' economically or socially, workers are workers. In da business & economic sense they are human capital - an investment in da way CalicoPenn describes - not "input."

 

I think what you're mixin' up from basic economics is da notion of labor and that of workers. Labor is somethin' that gets treated as an economic "input" if yeh are talkin' classical economic theory. But labor ain't the same thing as workers. Labor is work, not workers.

 

And while we're clarifyin' economic principles, business is not in business to "take care of itself." Business is in business to provide a good or service to others.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beavah: The Kennedy family are a bunch of upstarts. Ditto with the Bush family. Neither of them is the first family "dynasty" in US Politics.

 

The first "dynasty" would be the Adams:

Presidents John and son, President John Quincy Adams

And John's 2nd cousin Samuel, one of those rabel Bostonians that stirred up trouble against the British.

 

Then there was the true dynasty, the Harrison family:

Benjamin Harrison V, a signer of the Declaration of Independence

His Son, William Henry Harrison, 9th President

WH's son, John Scott, US Congress

JS's son, Benjamin Harrison, 23rd President

Benjamin's son, Russell Benjamin "only" served at the state level in Indiana, while his daughter, Mary, filled-in as First Lady upon her mother's death. She married James McKee, one of the founders of General Electric.

Edit: I missed Russell's son, William Henry, who served in the US Congress.(This message has been edited by moxieman)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eagle732 - While I agree that all is interconnected. Because of it's interconnection it is one reason why I voted Democrat.. It is just different viewpoints on what everyone sees as a better America. I think Democrats have an eye on the future and have taken the lead in not only what use to be the Democrat platform, but what use to be the good policies of the Republican platform that in the last few years they abandoned and allowed the Democrats to pick up and lead in.

 

As for unemployemnt reports you are hoping will show up next month.

 

Unemployment may be up due to some executives throwing tantrums and firing employee now rather then waiting to see what changes happen in the year before Obamacare hits in 2014.. In a year, more people may be finding jobs, spending money, your company may see an uptick in demand, also there may be something offered to small buisness to give them incentives to expand.. All of this is a reason a smart buisnessman will not act now on a foreseen problem in a year, except to try to make a political point.

 

But, when the unemployment numbers came out this month, they already knew there would be a different reason that next months unemployment numbers would be up. Something that hit before the numbers came out, but after the numbers were collected, so there was no impact from it in this past unemployment numbers.. That is Hurricane Sandy, which destroyed many buisness either permenantly or for a few months as they rebuild.. Alot of people's jobs were affected by it..

 

Therefore if you are hoping to point to next months numbers as proof positive that we all need to vote Republican in order to not anger the buisness tycoons.. That we all must except that our country is owned by the 1 percenters and bow down to them.. The point will be lost, to the bigger setback to job growth. Hurricane Sandy..

 

Most analysts feel that barring a upheaval in Europes economy, or some other unknown factor, signs are the economy is recovering. Obama will be able to take credit for what he put in place in the last 4 years.. Had Romney won, Romney could have taken credit for what Obama set in place if he didn't throw a monkey wrench into it.. Those 12 million jobs Romney promised to create, were jobs analyst anticipated to be created in the coming future through the policies Obama put in place.. But, that uptick is not planned for next month, next month they will be looking for the toll Hurricane Sandy took on employment.(This message has been edited by moosetracker)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've voted Republican 80% to 90% of the time. Probably always will. I was driven to the party years ago because of the hatred and bigotry in the Democrat party. I always find it interesting to see the Democratic party asserting moral ground.

 

- It was the Democratic convention that refused to seat a black delegation 1964.

- It was the Democratic south that blocked civil rights and the Little Rock Nine. It was a Republican president who sent out the Screaming Eagles and the national guard to protect them.

- I've never seen anything close to racism in any of the offices I've worked in, but I've seen and heard explicit racism on union AFL/CIO production floors.

- It was a Democratic president and government that grew the Vietnam War. The Pentagon Papers covered explicit lies and deceit of the Johnson administration.

 

I'm also a Reagan Republican and it was Reagan, the candidate, who advocated for the free flow of people and products across the Mexican and Canadian borders. It was Reagan who signed the 1986 amnesty for 3 million immigrants. It was the Democratic AFL/CIO who was fighting that immigration of products and people.

 

I'm not saying Republication party is morally better. I just find it repulsive that the Democratic party tries to act better-than-thou and that the press coverage is so very much more favorable for the Democratic party. ... But the Republican party has run some flaky candidates lately and has taken a turn away from their traditional roots too. So they have earned some of the press coverage.

 

But I'm still repulsed by much of the Democratic party "attitude". Generally, I'm against arguements that have at their base "take it from them because they have it and they are a smaller insignificant voting base."

 

Specifically, in this day and age, I'm repulsed by the 1% arguement. I'm far away from the 1%, but it screams to me of spurning hatred, blaming someone else and make others pay because they can. It's not at all about "fair share".

 

Ratio - Tax % to Income %

 

---- Top 1%.... - 2.17 - Earns 16.9% and pays 36.7% of income taxes

---- Top 5%.... - 1.85 - Earns 31.7% and pays 58.7% of income taxes

---- Top 10%... - 1.62 - Earns 43% and pays 70% of income taxes

---- Top 25%... - 1.33 - Earns 65% and pays 87% of income taxes

---- Bottom 50% - 0.17 - Earns 13% and pays 2.3% of income taxes.

 

And they have been paying more over the last 25 years.

 

% change in income tax share (1987 to 2009)

 

---- Top 1% .... up 48% ... 1987 24.81% of total income taxes. 2009 36.73 %

---- Top 5% .... up 35% ... 1987 43.26%. 2009 58%.

---- Top 10% ... up 27% ... 1987 55.61%. 2009 70.47%.

---- Bottom 50% ... down 63% ... 1987 6.07%. 2009 2.25%.

 

To say the top wage earns are not paying their "fair" share is rediculous.

 

It is an honest debate to discuss if top wage earners should pay more. But, IMHO, they have paid their fair share and it is intellectually dishonest to infer differently.

 

...

 

I'm a Republican and for free markets. So, let's get rid of the number one tax shelter for the upper class, mortgage interest deduction. That interest deduction never helps the lower 50% of the population. It barely helps the bottom 75%, but it greatly helps the top 10% of society. Or cap the interest deduction at $100,000 of principal. When I see measures like that out of the Democrat party, they will start earning some of my respect. I'm for free markets and this deduduction artificially inflates housing values and prevents the rich from paying their fair share.

 

...

 

Gotta admit, that even as a Reagan republican, I'm looking forward to Obamacare. It needs drastic improvements, but the current system is failing. I say that as I've been paying $1800 a month for health insurance not including dental, life or disability insurance.(This message has been edited by fred johnson)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×