Small firms say regulation is fastest-growing concern

Well, Kyle. Since Obama built those businesses, shouldn’t he be able to regulate them? The man has to have something to do.

Is it true that he hasn’t met with his Jobs Council…Committee…whatever…in six months? Does he find jobs to be a boring topic or what?

• Link
• Report this comment

Prediction: The libtards ignore the evidence and blame lack of a second Obozo stimulus and “corporate greed”.

• Link
• Report this comment

They should be worried about those roads that aren’t built yet……we all know those roads are the reason a small business succeeds………

• Link
• Report this comment

Wow…Kyle this is a reach. This is in generalities…which business are we discussing? Which regulations are we discussing? How does the torrent of new regulations affect these business? Are you saying lower demand in the face of the recession and the fact that people are deleveraging have nothing to do with low sales? I simply don’t believe that wiping the books clean of any regulatory actions will make up for the fact that people just don’t have the money.

• Link
• Report this comment

(Sigh) Another comment from JDW. Another miss.

The Washington Post conveniently (as usual) forgets who was running Congress during 2 of the last 3 years of the Bush Administration (not defending Bush at all, but providing CONTEXT behind the naked facts stated).

Further, the Post goes on to say: “Still, it’s worth noting that the number of “economically significant” regulations — meaning those that are expected to have a positive or negative impact on the economy of at least $100 million — has increased from 126 during Bush’s last three years to 177 during Obama’s first three.”

And just how many regulations from the Federal government ever reach the “positive effect” threshold?

Once again, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle didn’t do his homework.

He substitutes a survey of NFIB members with the generic “small businesses”. NFIB is an advocacy group for Republicans (just check out their endorsements). Surveying their members is like surveying NRA members to find out that gun control laws are too strict. They drank the Kool-Aid already.

I have several small businesses (including one that’s regulated as a “hotel”). Never have I thought that “regulations” are the issue that keep me from growing and expanding my business. Available credit, decent employees, and even this quaint concept of “24 hours in a day” are my biggest concerns. Regulations are so far down the list.

#FAIL

• Link
• Report this comment

What’s a libtard?

A word made up by a middle schooler whose mother doesn’t know what he’s doing right now with his right hand in the basement of their home.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius

Not one person has actually said which SPECIFIC regulation(s) is causing so much pain….just the threat of regulation. My point still stands…if people aren’t buying your stuff I don’t care how many regulations are or are not on the books, you’re done….the worry should be on why your business model cannot draw in enough revenue as opposed to non-specific regulations that may or may not even affect you.

• Link
• Report this comment

I know it is now a major chain, but Chick-fil-A was once a small business was BORN in Atlanta.

On a side note, I normally go to Chick-fil-a every Friday for 2 Chick-fil-A Sandwiches.

However, this Friday, in light of CFA’s very public & controversial political statement this week, I will be ordering 3 Chick-fil-A sandwiches instead.

I hope 0bammy’s Administration doesn’t come after you for sticking up for your beliefs.

You Rock, Cathy Family!

• Link
• Report this comment

The Federal Government now too big and too powerful, and it needs to stay the [Heck] out of our private lives.

I haven’t had a VARSITY chili dog in some time.

I wonder how the family who owns THE VARSITY feels (publicly) about same-gender “unions.”

• Link
• Report this comment

…the worry should be on why your business model cannot draw in enough revenue

Could be because so many people are unemployed?

• Link
• Report this comment

I am trying to thank byteme for his comment on the nfib. Why are they not showing up?

• Link
• Report this comment

BW, in case you missed it, we’re in either a recession or a weak recovery. Sales will ALWAYS be down due to that economic condition alone.

However, the COST of regulations keeps companies from providing goods at a lower cost to consumers, making it even harder for those without much money to purchase things.

Cause and effect, BW.

• Link
• Report this comment

Another way to think about this: if Bush generated more regulations than Obama why did concern over regulations start to increase when Obama took office? Could it be… Satan?

• Link
• Report this comment

Libtard?

That’s easy.

It is a term favored by juvenile delinquents with fifth grade vocabularies…

• Link
• Report this comment

Personally, I think there should be more color contrast in the graph. Blue and black are to close together.

• Link
• Report this comment

Serious question.

I have heard a lot of talk about “regulations” and how they are strangling the economy.

Can someone give me a list of say, about 10 regulations that are actively strangling small business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Can someone give me a list of say, about 10 regulations that are actively strangling small business.

And no fair complaining about a state regulation if the Republicans control your statewide offices.

• Link
• Report this comment

How are the questions worded? What is the sample frame (i.e. what is a small firm?; what are the demographics of the respondents?)

Best you’ll get is to go to the NFIB site and look at the national press release about the survey. Sometime around May 23, 2012 I think.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Can someone give me a list of say, about 10 regulations that are actively strangling small business.”

Ask Obama. He’s been studying them for that last three years in between vacations, golf, and fundraising.

• Link
• Report this comment

Btw, now is as good a time as any to point out that small firms are particularly sensitive to regulation because larger firms often team up with government to create regulations whose primary effect is to raise the barriers to entry for smaller competitors.

That’s a good point. It’s always amazed me that some small business people walk in lockstep with whatever large business people are pushing. They’re following the very people who are trying to put them out of business. I think for the large business people it’s often a bit of “please don’t throw me in the briar patch”.

• Link
• Report this comment

AmVet:

It is a term favored by juvenile delinquents with fifth grade vocabularies…

I know you dream of being a regulator, but try and focus, will you? The topic is regulations on small business, not your regulations on other bloggers.

You’re welcome.

• Link
• Report this comment

Did they ask other questions or just offer these three choices when they did the poll?

On the issue of regulation, it’s really hard to plan 5-10 years out when you don’t know what 0bama’s going to come up with next (and implement tomorrow via executive order), or which laws will be enforced and whch others won’t.

The data presented reinforces the idea that uncertainty is a job killer. (But hey, the government made you successful, right? Just leave it to them, we’ll all be singing kum-ba-ya when they fix it.)

• Link
• Report this comment

I hear this meme repeated constantly on Fox but is argument always seems to lack specific regulations. Can someone enlighten?

It’s called “propaganda” and the low-information fools lap it up so that Fox can keep selling ad time for tampons and overpriced gold bullion.

• Link
• Report this comment

The data presented reinforces the idea that uncertainty is a job killer.

Let me know when business success or external conditions are a certainty. Oh, that’s right: never.

• Link
• Report this comment

Filter, in case you missed it, government is all around you.

From the regulations on drugs that cause the cost of them to skyrocket, driving up health care costs, to OSHA regulations on virtually everything from exacting heights of electrical outlets to the type of ladder you have to buy, to virtually every other facet of running a business, and woe be unto you if you don’t follow them to the letter.

The studies are out there for you to read. Find them.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey Poor Boy From Alabama!! Great to see you hanging around the Wingfield Blog!! Come by more often, you always have a lot to say.

• Link
• Report this comment

Says the woman who has obsessed over me for nearly five years.

Too funny…

“Can someone give me a list of say, about 10 regulations that are actively strangling small business.”

I’ve asked this question before and have yet to ever get an intelligent, empirically verifiable list. I’d settle for two or three.

And the laugher is that it would be real easy to come up with. Because they certainly exist

But when basic research is a bane (is that word allowed anymore, Mr. Limbaugh?!) to the neocons, all one can expect is talking points compeletly bereft of facts, specifics, evidence, data, links or proof.

(And blank stares do not count!)

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe….can you enlighten us as to how you are running your small business since you seem to disagree with other small business owners.

• Link
• Report this comment

Byte Me @ 12:40

My eyes just ain’t seeing green. If it is green, they should’ve gone with a shade that offered more contrast, in my humble opinion.

Bruno @ 12:38

That’s a good point. In my opinion, they need to be figuring out something to base the economy on other than housing, consumerism and other things that depend on perpetual expansion (usually at a rapid rate). I don’t think either side has figured out that we’re in a long, slow decline and that’s the reality you have to deal with.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some say that these small business owners spend to much time with Rush and Sean and not enough time running their businesses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yes, it’s Keynesian. So is Keynes’ statement that when times are good, you do everything you can to reduce government spending. People forget that part.

That’s another good point. Most Keynesians (if that’s the right term) only follow half of the equation. It’s the same basic principle as the Biblical seven years of plenty and seven years of famine. It only works if you put up during the seven years of plenty. It’s hard to get through the seven years of famine, if you didn’t hold anything back during the seven years of plenty.

• Link
• Report this comment

I own a small to mid size company. We have gone from 208 employees to 135 since Obama was sworn in. No, I don’t blame him for everything. I do blame him for an ideology that believes we can tax our way out of this and that government is the answer……and he is Hell bent on that belief. I’m a S corp and 4 years ago paid 1.5 million dollars in federal taxes. Last year I paid 400,000. Follow the math, that’s 1.1 million less. Obama is concerned about getting my top rate to 39.5 from 35% . At my current income level in this economy, that’s an extra 20,000 or so in additional taxes. Wow…….Why doesn’t he have the mind set to say, ” we need to get this company back to healthy so this company is back to paying 1.5 million in taxes rather than focus on the extra 4.5 %. He truly doesn’t get it. Robust companies in robust economies fill the treasury and the hiring. His ideology is killing us. That’s why the term ” it’s the economy stupid” is so true.

• Link
• Report this comment

ByteMe….none responsive, you still have not enlightened us on the small business you own and run. It really does not matter if deflect again or not as I believe everyone already knows the answer

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m a liberal and believe everything I read and nothing the other side comes up with…cause we’re smart and they are not

maybe ByteMe can give you some pointers on how he runs his company

• Link
• Report this comment

“Half the stimulus was wasted on tax cuts, which don’t put anyone to work. A whole bunch more went to the states to keep teachers employed. Completely misdirected actions on everyone’s part ”

Am I reading this right, ByteMe?

Have you finally come around to the notion that the Stimulus was a failure?

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I see AmVet has manged to get in all the requisite keywords to receive his compensation from the DNC this afternoon.

• Link
• Report this comment

One only needs to google ” new OSHA mandates to get a good start. I’m living it.

• Link
• Report this comment

We wouldn’t need jails if they were not any outlaws, this is why we need regulations because of the crooks. If you police yourselves, you wouldn’t need police.

• Link
• Report this comment

Off to forage. Hope you all have a pleasant afternoon.

• Link
• Report this comment

For the person asking for new federal regulations ( just give me 10) start with the new NFPA 70 E OSHA ( National fire protection Assoc) Standards and the new OSHA 30 hour hour mandatory training. We’ll start with these simple 40 -50 requirements.

• Link
• Report this comment

JamVet,

You’re welcome.

There’s no doubt that we need laws and regulations just to keep society functioning. Things would be chaotic without them. The problem is that we often get bad laws and regulations from folks who don’t seem to know or care how burdensome they are. Big companies often like these clunky rules because they stifle innovation and make it harder for new firms to grow. Take a look at the SBA report I reference previously. The annual cost of federal regulatory compliance is $10,585 per employee for firms with less than 20 workers vs. $7,755 per employee for companies with more than 500 workers. Those kinds of differentials can really hurt small businesses. .

• Link
• Report this comment

If you police yourselves, you wouldn’t need police.

That’s the way we used to do it up here in the Hills. Folks called us backwards, though. It worked as well as what we have now, if not better.

As such, we can only rely on faith and gut instinct inorder to decide if a particular economic policy is effective.

I agree with you on that. All economic systems and theories are a product of man, so they’re all flawed. I don’t believe there is a such thing as an “economic law”. You just do the best you can and make it up as you go, hopefully looking backwards for a little guidance.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Kyle, what are your thoughts on the LIBOR scam? do you think banks should be self-regulating?

wonder why you are silent on this”

This is known in the business as a deflection.

• Link
• Report this comment

What part of Poor Boy’s 12:49 did you not understand, fedup?

• Link
• Report this comment

The fallacy of Kyle’s conclusion is quite clear:

“— this graph clearly shows why improved demand hasn’t shifted the economy out of neutral: Increased regulation has stifled the recovery we might have had.”

The graph shows nothing like that. The graph only shows what business answering the cited survey said about their concerns, not what actually has happened.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle

In certain industries and companies there is a lack of aggregate demand.

As for the article. I am not arguing with the chart you put up, however you seem to short on specifics in terms of the issues within the chart. How about a deep dive within those categories.

As for demand. Not many companies turning away business because of Obamacare being declared constitutional. Outside of contractual or proprietary issues, if company A can not meet a customers demand, company B will do it.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hating the President because he is so much more intelligent, more compassionate, more capable, better educated and is just a better person than you are is not pretty. That also explains your hatred for Bill Clinton and your love of Dubya. You’re a pathetic and disgusting excuse for a human being.

• Link
• Report this comment

There is no meaningful economic difference between (a) a regulation, and (b) a tax coupled with a legal mandate. A regulation requires that a company tax itself to whatever extent necessary to achieve a particular goal-not-set-by-the-market. If you like higher taxes, you will love the coming economic effects of ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m banned over there ” they BOTH suck”………..And rightly so I guess. Having a little fun and there is no fun in Libville to be had.

• Link
• Report this comment

Exactly what regulations have hindered these small businesses? Seems like its all just speculation to me. What new regs instituted under this President have kept these businesses from making a buck?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you seriously want to stimulate the economy, you need not repeal a single regulation – simply abolish the capacity of any agency to “levy a fine.” Let them attempt to put people in jail for alleged violations, but do not allow the bureaucrats to siphon off capital.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Cutty @ 1:51, good afternoon, you have a flawed assumption, that the moribund economy is reactive to the Obama agenda already published in the CFR. In fact, the morbund economy is anticipative of the Obama agenda to be published in the CFR.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dear Cutty @ 1:51, rephrasing my 1:56, the fellow whose head in the guillotine is concerned about the blade about to fall; he has little regard for the blade that already fell.

• Link
• Report this comment

I still don’t have an answer to my question. Lots of banter and deflection but no answer.

As for OSHA and their inspections, that agency was around LONG before January 2009. It seems disingenuous to lay every regulation on the books at the feet of the President, unless of course your argument is that he should repeal all of them.

I am asking, repeatedly now, for a simple list of regulations that this President has enacted that are strangling small business and the economy.

• Link
• Report this comment

I am a liberal-

So you say it was petty stuff, but that implies it ws still a violation

So what you are saying is you want to be above the law…wow.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tools of ignorance.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Let them attempt to put people in jail for alleged violations”

Sounds like the former Soviet Union — and not at all Randian.

• Link
• Report this comment

A fan plugged into a outlet with an extension cord is worth a 1,200 fine from a “fair, I’m here to help Government”. The OSHA book has over 76,000 rules. This guy said he only knew about 20 % of them

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, off subject as usual but Romney and Obama have BOTH spoken with charm and concern on the terrible tragedy in Colorado. Always good to remember the real feeling Americans have for each other. Someone killing 12 people and wounding 50 while they were simply watching a movie…..that reminds us of our mutual humanity.. The outstanding gentlemen of our country reflect that well.

• Link
• Report this comment

We don’t hate your president, AU, we just think he’s mildly retarded and a sociopath.

• Link
• Report this comment

For 28 years she took Methamphetamine every day to “control her weight”. She died collecting her disability check because of her declining health due to over consumption of cigarettes.

So much for objectivism, as long as it doesn’t apply to you.

She was personally more into collectivism. The lemmings still hang on every word though. Only L. Ron Hubbard was a worse, morally corrupt “author”.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Corporations are people too ” ….Mitt

They are people because they have lobbyists that give money to elect politicians. Small firms do not count.

• Link
• Report this comment

Which candidate do you expect to do more about the most pressing problems faced by small firms — Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?

Barack Obama.

Mitt will help firms that need to offshore work or organize workforces outside the US. And very few small businesses are in a situation to take advantage of that. Barack is focused on the companies working here.

• Link
• Report this comment

We don’t hate your president, AU, we just think he’s mildly retarded and a sociopath.

Well, better mildly retarded than obviously retarded:

“We want to help people put food on their families.”

“We ought to make the pie higher.”

“Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job.”

“You’re working hard to put food on your family.”

“Too many good docs are getting out of the business. Too many OB-GYNs aren’t able to practice their love with women all across this country.”

“Strategery”

• Link
• Report this comment

I made the point just yesterday to our liberal friends on the other blog that burdensome regulation is affordable by the big boys in business and helps keep out the smaller firms and erect a barrier to entry. Hopefully it will sink in with our liberal friends. If you really despise big business as many of you seem to then you better hope that regulation is loosened. Because if not then big business will be protected and insulated by regulation and will be calling the shots. You would think that once they understand this that liberals would be in favor of less regulation that only aids the big business behemoths.

• Link
• Report this comment

Same thing happened in fascist Germany by the way. The big businesses like Mercedes Benz allowed themselves to be regulated and worked with by the govt. The combination of the 2 together big business with big gubment should be enough to scare the hell out of both cons and libs. Over here we call it crony capitalism but the idea is the same- big gubment picking winners and losers and helping big business which in turn gets help in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, and regulation that keeps out or unfairly burdens smaller competitors.

• Link
• Report this comment

md,

To echo your point grocery stores operate on traditionally razor thin profit margins- 1-3%. If you have a new regulation that adversely affects a small, independent grocery store or a smaller grocery chain then that could be the difference between profit and going out of business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Regulations add to expenses, which may be the difference between a profit and hiring more people and a loss and having to let them go……and the number of customers might be a constant.

Regulations are the cost of doing business – every company in that space has the same regulations. All trucking companies face the same regulations. All stapler makers face the same regulations. All calculator makers face the same regulations. All ice cream truck vendors face the same regulations.

It’s the cost of doing business and has to be taken in to account when starting a business. If you can’t make a profit, start a different business. Otherwise, it’s just a normal everyday republican crying point.

Any manager you see – anywhere – who is blaming regulations for his/her not being able to earn profits is a lazy slob or an idiot who shouldn’t be in business anyway. If you can’t make a profit and don’t leave the industry then you have to question your ability to think clearly.

Republicans want to keep failing businesses open for what reason? Republicans want sorry managers to keep on losing money and laying off people because of what?

Oh, that’s right. They can probably write the losses off on their taxes. So we, the tax payers, get to subsidize these losers cause Republicans love em and need their votes?

• Link
• Report this comment

If you have a new regulation that adversely affects a small, independent grocery store or a smaller grocery chain then that could be the difference between profit and going out of business.

Then LEARN how to make a profit – do the work, pull all nighters working on the problems. Hire people who can solve problems. Otherwise, close you doors cause you are just a drain on all the other businesses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, I forgot to throw out the welcome mat for refugees from the blog next door. I am sure they miss the twisted pretzel bits they are fed every day. Kyle serves only wholesome vittles here. (I am definitely into food comparisons today, Real Athens)

Anyway, dear wandering ones, Kyle does have REGULATIONS!!! Tada! If you do not behave, you are thrown into the outer darkness. If you cry and sniffle, Kyle does have a box of Kleenex on his desk.

Now, for the most part, I am off to mind my small “business”. Just one delightful household, a few tomato plants and a feral cat !!

Don’t forget,: MYOB and no monkey business!

• Link
• Report this comment

“I still don’t have an answer to my question.”

Yes you have Filter; you just choose not to do your own reading.

However in the spirit of hoping you’ll finally shut up with your foolish question:

Obamacare.

Far more than 10 regulations in THAT steaming pile which will cost businesses plenty.

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh oh, Finn is here to start his second job. I shoulda left earlier.

• Link
• Report this comment

Filter

Ask on if you have the notion. No blogger has been given the authority to tell or suggest you shut up.

Everyone have a great weekend.

• Link
• Report this comment

If rather running from Chik, the gays should make say Thur night “their” night at Chik, holding hands and such, they after a while change to say Wed night and surprise the homophobes who would stay away to avoid them. Cathy is getting what he wants.

• Link
• Report this comment

I find it funny when someone ask for a list of regulations, you simply point out a bill but not a regulation.

And on the state water thing. That seems really important..just saying.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Cathy is getting what he wants.”

Not condoning his actions. but the guy is 91 years old…..I’m guessing he pretty much doesn’t care what others think……now cfa may have to worry about it, but I doubt he will.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, here is a weekend topic idea:

Should Women Have the Right to Go Topless in Public?

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t expect Cathy to change any morals — if the chain got labeled “gay” his customers would stay home. You have been to chick right ?

• Link
• Report this comment

“I find it funny when someone ask for a list of regulations, you simply point out a bill but not a regulation.”

Written by someone who has never studied the legislation process or passed Civics 101 (or actually passed a law) in their lifetime.

Bills are nothing BUT regulations, with the lone exception of proclamations – you know – things like “Treat a liberal with kindness because they are so dense” day.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t think Chick fil a is worried, because if you landed here from Mars last week and started listening to the news, the radio, movies, TV, Washington, you would think the country is about 1/3 Gay. It’s about 2% or less Gay. It’s just the Business model is so strong.

• Link
• Report this comment

If you actually believe that Chick-Fil-A does anything for any reason other than focus-group-tested marketing purposes, your childlike credulity is really touching.

• Link
• Report this comment

s/b they will do.

• Link
• Report this comment

Pass the cost on…just like a tax…huh

• Link
• Report this comment

And with that I go to fight traffic.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius-
You DO realize that the regulations creating those jobs COSTS THE COMPANIES THAT HAVE TO CREATE / HIRE THEM MONEY, right?

Is there a difference between one job at company A, or company A sending money to company B for a service and they hire one person.

That’s like me saying you know me going grocery shopping cost me money.

Money is not a finite linear change, it’s circular. My income is your revenue. In the case of a company, their revenue(or expense) is my income stream.

• Link
• Report this comment

Strategas Research. Hmmm. Oh yes. They used to be called HotAir Inc.

• Link
• Report this comment

“or company A sending money to company B for a service and they hire one person. ”

One must also remember that company B is also subject to SOX….may be a wash.

• Link
• Report this comment

Private vs public corps, md …. if they are “people”, they should pay more taxes.

• Link
• Report this comment

MD-

In the company A to B example, they were generic. If the SOX example was applied, comapny B would be a CPA firm, and only 5 I believe are public and would not be subject to SOX.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Tiberius- In the context of jobs though, whether forced or not, did it not create a job.”

Yes. Your point?

Because being forced to shell out money to create a job takes money out of a business it can use to lower the cost of a product, pay their own people more, hire new people to actually make things, or simply make more money. Even upgrade their processes to become more efficient.

Something bad has to happen before you get your created job.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, Not really hanging my hat on anything….. But where is the flaw in that statement????

• Link
• Report this comment

The list of ten, never going to happen. But be afraid, be very afraid..

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty-

A liberal here doesn’t even know that hiring more people in a company increases company costs

(Face plam) I thought that was understood and didn’t need to be spelled out. MY point was that an increase can be tied to a job created.

He also does not know that spending money you don’t have increases debt.

So what would you say to all the small business owners who finance their start-ups with debt. Isn’t that money they don’t have/

• Link
• Report this comment

“same point applies still, in your example, if it cost jobs in one and created them in another, isn’t that a zero sum gain(assuming a 1 to 1 relationship)”

An awful lot of assuming to get to that 1 for 1……..if A doesn’t increase demand at B, it’s a net loss.

• Link
• Report this comment

MD-
Not really, the regulation created the demand rememeber.(See SOX example)

It is just like any other law or rule on the books. If they passed a law saying all businesses must purchase the ajc, the demand was created by the law.

• Link
• Report this comment

Some people are stupid @4:31

I don’t think you “understood” that hiring people costs companies money at all. You had an idea that hiring a bunch of people would give the magic word “jobs”. Now you back off.

Not all small business owners start up with debt. The ones that do are probably the ones closing the business as their homes are being. foreclosed.

Our president is supposed to be running one of the largest countries in the world. I hope he isn’t trying to run it like a start-up in debt small business.

On second thought, that may be exactly what he is doing. I’m for shutting down his “business” before we are all in Chinese foreclosure.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius-

1. Initial discussion on this blog is regulations hurting small business form hiring correct.
2. My point regulations can lead to jobs.
3. your point regulations cost the company
4. my next point the cost to the company is the income to the other.
5. Regulation has to happen before a job can be created.
6. My point, I have to spend money before a job can be created, so what the difference.
7. In conclusion- it’s the same thing. I see your point, my counter-point is money out whether from you or a company is still money out that goes to someone or something else. Your cost is still my income. In the end, the net sum is more than likely still the same.

(most companies employed auditors prior to SOX. The whole free market, who would you trust kind of thing, an audited report vs an non audited report. )

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius, Again, you are off base…..

Comply….Speaks for itself….
Find away around the regulation……
To the point someone made earlier about being fined $1200.00 for having a lamp plugged into and extension cord…. How about you removed teh extension cord and go right to the outlet. Or the one aout having a pond and needing the COE to come out and approve it…… Why not choose a location that DOES NOT HAVE A POND!!!!

And my third point….. Well starting and running a business is not easy and it is not supposed to be… If you do not have the will and or teh smarts to figure out how to do it and make a profit, then shutting your doors and going to work for the next guy might not be such a bad idea……

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty-
1. HUH??
2. When you purchase groceries, is that not an expense to you, is that not revenue to the grocery store. I’m pretty sure there are some errors in the second sentence that I don’t want to misinterpret so I will let you reword it so I can respond if you feel like it.

MD-
the regulation demanded that the corp increase it’s expenses to comply..

Ok, then if the work wasn’t shipped somewhere else or given to someone new, what is the expense?? This whole post was about financial so unless you are about to say time, you are completly off topic.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I see your point, my counter-point is money out whether from you or a company is still money out that goes to someone or something else.”

My final point is that the money out was taken by FORCE.

If you think that is a good thing, then heaven help this nation.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Why not choose a location that DOES NOT HAVE A POND!!!! ”

Ever been to south Ga?

And pond was never mentioned………we are talking “puddles”…..real honest to goodness puddles. In Atlanta, one wouldn’t think twice about it, in south Ga, it depends on what is growing in that puddle (atl too, but not as frequent). And the corp has to verify that the plants in the puddle aren’t the special ones or there aren’t enough special ones to worry about it…….bureaucracy at it’s finest…..

• Link
• Report this comment

In 2010, 25 of its [NFIB's] members, all Republican, were elected to the 112th Congress. A number of them, such as Rand Paul, Jeff Duncan, Paul Gosar and Kristi Noem, are affiliated with or endorsed by the Tea Party movement. The same year, the NFIB opposed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act health care reform legislation while some other small business advocates supported the measure.

Get real, Kyle.

• Link
• Report this comment

“I thought our whole discussion was regulations can create jobs. Since you seem to have conceded that point…”

Perhaps regulations do create jobs- jobs that deal with pushing paperwork to comply with some bureaucrats fancy dictates. But in the end it comes back to basic economics 101. Spending money to comply with regulatory costs is an inefficient allocation of resources and economic progress is enhanced by higher and higher levels of worker productivity and the efficient allocation of scarce resources. Regulatory costs inhibit both. The problem is that most liberals lack basic economics knowledge and can’t understand this most basic tenet of economics.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ 5:05- exactly. Its an easy and generally a bogus argument to berate information simply because of the source without looking at it in depth. In this case however, looking at it closely clearly shows multiple sources of bias, rendering the results useless for anything other than propaganda.

Just as useful would be a poll among known wife beaters asking what they perceive to be the biggest problem facing American women. Do they A) Talk too much, B) Think they know too much, or C)Not do what they are told fast enough?

• Link
• Report this comment

EPA Boiler MACT

There are more than 1.5 million boilers in the U.S.

• For 86 percent of all boilers in the United States, these rules would not apply,
because these boilers burn clean natural gas at area source facilities and emit
little pollution.
• For almost 13 percent of all boilers in the United States, EPA’s standards would
continue to rely on practical, cost-effective work practice standards to reduce
emissions.
• For the highest emitting 0.4 percent of all boilers in the United States, including
boilers located at refineries, chemical plants, and other industrial facilities, EPA is
proposing more targeted revised emissions limits that provide industry practical,
protective, cost-effective options to meet the standards.
• Existing boilers would have three years to comply with these standards and can
obtain an additional year beyond that, if technology cannot be installed in time.
• Existing incinerators would need to comply no later than three years after EPA
approves a state plan or five years after the publication date, whichever is earlier.

• The proposed changes would cut emission of pollutants such as mercury,
particle pollution, sulfur dioxide, dioxin, lead, and nitrogen dioxide.
• These pollutants can cause a range of dangerous health effects – from
developmental disabilities in children to cancer, heart disease and premature
death.
• The proposed standards would have direct benefits to many communities where
people live very close to these units.
• Together, the standards will avoid up to 8,100 premature deaths, 5,100 heart
attacks, and 52,000 asthma attacks.
• EPA estimates that Americans would receive 12 to 30 dollars in health benefits
for every dollar spent to meet the proposed standards.

Those mean nasty wegulations are just killing our small businesses. Oh Woe is me.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Perhaps regulations do create jobs- jobs that deal with pushing paperwork to comply with some bureaucrats fancy dictates”
____________________________________________________________
Tell that to the engineers who designed and people who manufacture automobile seatbelts and airbags, or the equipment which help create healty food processing, etc. not to mention the benefits of not suffering the economic losses which result from irresponsible business behavior in the first place.

• Link
• Report this comment

saywhat?

NFIB has 350,000 thousand members according to wiki. And if so then the opinions of 25 Republicans out of 350,000 members who also happen to be NFIB members is negligible.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle- “And if any of you know an equivalent association of small-business owners who tend to support Democratic policies, and want to cite a similar poll by them, then by all means, please do.”

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/regulation-and-unemployment/

This opinion column( by a Republican no less) holds an opinion different than your own, and cites many other surveys and data. It even cites the NFIB poll you started with, though with a far different interpretation, including one provided by the Economic Policy Institute (which though it calls itself non-partisan, appears to be more liberal in its core ideology).

• Link
• Report this comment

How…,

Would I be correct that you agree with the stated goal of Obama to crush the coal industry in this country?

How interesting that you chide small businesses for their “moaning and groaning” yet you imply that you live, or lived, downstream of a coal ash retention pond or downwind of an antiquated coal-fired boiler or cement plant, as if these businesses had an impact on your quality of life.

So was your home there when the businesses moved upstream or upwind of you, or did you move in without investigating the area?

Airports are not pleasant neighbors so would you then propose closing all of the airports?

Hospitals have emergency vehicles, with their lights and sirens, arriving at all hours of the day and night. Would you propose closing all of the hospitals out of respect for their residential neighbors?

Schools with hundreds of screaming children are a nuisance to some. Close those as well?

Liberals live in a dream world where everyting should be perfect for all and all of the time. In every good little liberal’s mind the government is the answer when in fact government is the problem. Government has an unquenchable thirst for money and liberals do not see this as a problem when, in fact, this thirst is the most crushing of problems for the citizens.

• Link
• Report this comment

Seat belts are an excellent idea, however the imposition by government into the private lives of citizens through a law requiring seat belt use is a bad idea. Sure they save lives but we should seek freedom not surfdom.

I use my seat belt every time I drive and require those who ride with me to do the same. Those who ride with me have the option of an alternative ride. Government as your nanny is a bad idea.

• Link
• Report this comment

How Inciteful 5:29

I wouldn’t know a boiler from a broiler. Nevertheless, we all want to live with fresh air, safe environment and clean water. Most of us know that getting that 100% is impossible.

It is good to try to improve such conditions but considering the cost of such regulations shows the impossibility for one thing. “Boilers” are but a drop in the bucket for “green” regulations. We need filters on every river, on every “smoke stack”, on every chemical plant or any that use chemicals. on every farm production, every medicine, every gas & oil producer, all building material, all machinery and automotives, and every drop of ocean water should be purified.

The government is not good at giving costs as they usually under estimate. I would say double any government estimate and start from there.

We have to limit the amount of money spent on unhealthy but interminable expenses, We must do the best we can with limited amounts. Too many problems, too many people, and not enough money.

Our government was made to govern a free people, not produce impossible miracles or sink a country with debt..Right now it seems government has forgotten its definition .

• Link
• Report this comment

Since we bloggers haven’t been able to satisfy the libtards by providing chapter and verse on the reasons small businesses are doing poorly during the Obozo regime, perhaps someone should take a poll of small businessmen.

Oh, wait, someone already did…

• Link
• Report this comment

You think airbags and seatbelts are expensive? Price out a funeral, or multiply that by a factor of 10 to 50 for a closed head injury.

• Link
• Report this comment

saywhat?

You missed my point. I didn’t say they weren’t regulations that we should have, I said they increased the cost of a car, which they did.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly D,

Dang. I didn’t know they added that much to the price of a car. I’m a very defensive driver and have never had an accident. Come to think of it I would have passed on the airbags but not on the seatbelts. But I didn’t have the choice.

• Link
• Report this comment

saywhat,

For what its worth the 3 or 4 k saved on an airbag would be lots of money left over to buy an insurance premium that exceeds the cost of a funeral 10 to 50 fold depending on the insured. For example that 4 k saved over 8 years would amount to $500 a year or roughly $50 a month. $50 a month for someone in their 30s or 40s could buy a half million in life insurance.

• Link
• Report this comment

Old Timer, if Romney had a lead on October 1, we’ll be bombing Iran.

• Link
• Report this comment

Boston mayor vows to keep Chick-fil-A out of city
The Associated Press
—————————————

The Catholic church is next, no doubt.

• Link
• Report this comment

SIX hours and not one of the brilliant posters here have taken up my challenge to put forth a list of ten small business/economy strangling regulations promulgated by the Obama Administration.

Not one.

Until next time

• Link
• Report this comment

BW:

You were being sarcastic? My bad. And please, NEVER learn to use those emoticon thingies. Hate those things.

AmVet:

Poor Boy, thanks for that info. I will look at it when I get a chance.

And please share your “thoughts” with us once you have.

schnirt

• Link
• Report this comment

“SIX hours and not one of the brilliant posters here have taken up my challenge to put forth a list of ten small business/economy strangling regulations promulgated by the Obama Administration.”

Okay, fil, I’ll bite.

Lots a times it’s the regs that aren’t out there that are the most damaging to business, but are in the pipeline.

There are still more than 150 regs outstanding for Obamacare and over a hundred for Dodd-Frank.

Uncertainty abounds.

It’s a killer environment for business expansion.

But thanks for playing.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thulsa @ 6:34

Yes but we’ve also gotten to see the downside of big banks, too.

As somebody wrote in the Vent the other day, “Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank; give a man a bank and he can rob the world”.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hillbilly D,

No doubt. There are downsides also but I’ll take a bank that is going to stay in business over one that could fold with the latest crop failure. Besides credit unions is what I’ve always gone with even though I deal with a bank right now. Much friendlier than banks.

• Link
• Report this comment

” Now those of you who know what those big banks have done to you and your 401k, why are you still carrying around one or two of their bank credit cards in your possession?”

Sorry but my bank has never done anything to me. Nor to my 401k which has nothing to do with them. Get off the W tirade. He is not in office anymore. Furthermore if you look at economic history typically the deeper the recession/depression the greater and steeper the recovery. Only under obama has this nation had such a poor, anemic recovery. And btw the recession officially ended 6 months into his presidency. That doesn’t explain poor economic performance for the 3 years after it ended.

• Link
• Report this comment

” it is the greed that hamper and keep banks in business over your hard earn dollars that you make and can’t enjoy because yo have to pay it all back to them!”

We must come from 2 different worlds. In my world when you borrow money you pay back the loan. As for greed if the banks are that greedy don’t deal with them. The last bank loan I had was also at a reasonable rate. Its not as if I was dealing with titlemax sir.

• Link
• Report this comment

I’m out. Ya’ll have a good evening.

• Link
• Report this comment

A liberal who believes the government is the answer to your problems.

• Link
• Report this comment

winston….those are some mighty fine excuses there, and I bet you have even more.

Can you show me just one person that was forced to buy a house? Just one will do.

As for the credit cards……you are aware that everybody’s rates went up in direct relation to the credit card bill passed by Obama….don’t you?

And filter, you can add that bill to your list of regulations……….

• Link
• Report this comment

While we are talking about conservatives making non-sense arguments on which regulations to keep perhaps one of these sanctimonious Marxist Fascist Socialist all government gurus can enlighten us on what isn’t regulated by the wunerful BIG FEDERAL GUB’MENT?

Oh and by the way, I can make a very sensible list of “specific regulations”. In fact, that list has already been written long ago by people far smarter than any of us and that includes you on the left. That list can be found in the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8.

Enjoy your “enumerated” reading assignment liberals.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Oh and by the way, I can make a very sensible list of “specific regulations”. In fact, that list has already been written long ago by people far smarter than any of us and that includes you on the left. That list can be found in the United States Constitution Article 1 Section 8.”

A nonsense par excellence.

• Link
• Report this comment

We can’t be concerned about regulation. What difference does regulating business make since government and the workers are the source of all economic growth. Businesses are just parasites to be milked…err…taxed and kept under control.

How far we have fallen!!

• Link
• Report this comment

correction….and you haven’t answered my question

• Link
• Report this comment

[...] Small firms say regulation is fastest-growing concern [...]

• Link
• Report this comment

Are we officially off-topic yet??

For my old friend josef:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jg8jf9oTjw

• Link
• Report this comment

I guess I’m just in a Simon & Garfunkel type of mood……

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lO9Ild2cvdg&feature=related

For @@ ^^^^^^^^

• Link
• Report this comment

Well, if we’re going with Tears For Fears, this one comes to mind. Must be the mood I’m in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96025-qG3C8&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

Here is a prime example of how regulations are destroying small business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Evening, Bruno. You are missed next door.

Hey, Mr. B, great to see you. I guess all good things must eventually end. Hope you and yours are well.

Put up a song for us.

• Link
• Report this comment

Inciteful–This one is for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ-bq4E2AKc

• Link
• Report this comment

Happy ramadan!

allah akbar!

Wait, is moochelle eating pork? Again?

• Link
• Report this comment

OK. While your in a Simon mood

Mr. B…

For thy tuneage, we gratefully thank thee.

• Link
• Report this comment

So where are josef, TBS, JamVet and Reporter tonight??

• Link
• Report this comment

BRUNO

Thanks….tried to make a link, but I’m in moderation here, so going back home…

• Link
• Report this comment

but I’m in moderation here

Thanks for trying, josef.

• Link
• Report this comment

@tiberius…”Further, the Post goes on to say: “Still, it’s worth noting that the number of “economically significant” regulations — meaning those that are expected to have a positive or negative impact on the economy of at least $100 million — has increased from 126 during Bush’s last three years to 177 during Obama’s first three.””

Yep and since the net impact is less than in prior Republican Administrations Sunsteins statement is correct and your opinion is not.

• Link
• Report this comment

yosef- If you are in moderation, how would we see your comment?

• Link
• Report this comment

Cool, we’re exchanging tunes tonight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tz4bbqgge8

• Link
• Report this comment

REPORTER

It was the post where I made a link…I’m not a paranoiac on these things…

• Link
• Report this comment

josef–Send JamMan over, will you??

• Link
• Report this comment

Wish I could afford to see these guys next week at Chastain:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dTBTeoS0MA

• Link
• Report this comment

Clearly, JDW, your reading comprehension skills are eroding even further than I thought.

There is NO WAY in the English language that you can construe that the net impact is less based on that statement. Obama has 50 more “economically significant” regulations than Bush did. Of AT LEAST $100 million in impact. There is ZERO possibility, given the usually negative impact of regulations, that anyone can conclude that the net impact is less.

Unless you’re severely deranged.

Are you?

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Wingfield:

The decreased concern about sales may reflect the halting recovery we are enjoying. The concern over regulation may reflect the uncertainty of all of us about what our disfunctional government (both parties) may produce eventually.

• Link
• Report this comment

Mr. Wingfield,

You claim that “Small firms are generally credited with the bulk of job creation in this country.”

Have you ever bothered to substantiate this claim, or do you just take it as true because both sides of the political divide seem to repeatedly make this claim?

While small businesses are certainly important to the cultural and economic fabric of America, their impact as job creators is being completely misrepresented for political gain by both Romney and Obama.

Please educate yourself! Small businesses (those with fewer than 20 employees) account for 21.5 million employees; bigger firms employ close to 100 million American workers (from http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html).

I invite you to visit politicdiscourse.com for more enlightening facts and opinions.

• Link
• Report this comment

Kyle, Your effort to connect regs, sales, etc is virtually meaningless as are typical efforts by Repubs. For instance just what regs are involved that act as deterrents and would they apply across board to create deterrent effect? Just what taxes are you speaking off specifically that has the effect you claim? Are theses regs and taxes perceived or actual? How much of “fear” is result Repub misinformation? There is simply not enough hard data and way to many unknowns and variables to support your claims of some connection between these “fears.” Such claims affect your journalistic credibility. Jim
,

• Link
• Report this comment

Jim, Kyle didn’t say that regulations are the fastest-growing concern of small business, or that taxes are as big a concern as sales.

Small business owners did.

Do you somehow know more about these businesses than do their owners?

Are we to substitute your wisdom for that of thousands of real Americans working in the real economy? That’s what your Klown Obozo wants to do–and the results are apparent in his 41 months of 8-10% unemployment, record numbers of folks on welfare, and annual $1.5 trillion deficits.

• Link
• Report this comment

I agree with Gallager: you don’t need dam inspections. If your arse lives downstream from a dam, get your arse up there and inspect it yourself.

If you’re gonna eat meat, then you ought to make sure it’s clean.

You gonna drink water, make sure it come from a good well.

You gonna buy a car, crawl up under that bad boy and check ‘er out.

And, I could go on and on, but the fact of the matter is we have too damn many regulations and bureaucrats doing what we ought to be doing for ourselves. They didn’t have these dang regulations and inspectors back in the 19th century and if they were able to survive so can we.

You’re just too dang lazy sitting there on your comfortable couch waiting for your handout and for someone to taste your food for you. Man up and do it yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

The full implementaion of obamacare is the fastest growing concern for small businesses; and large businesses.

• Link
• Report this comment

…have been saying about the economy every day since then: It’s Bush’s fault, and the problem is a lack of aggregate demand.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

Run, Kyle, run!

Hide Kyle, hide!

You elected the worst president in modern American history.

Cataclysmic bad. Th eman who left office is disgrace with insanely low approval ratings. 18% by Independents!

And now you don’t like that aftermath of what you wrought. All this talk about personal responsibility is just that. Talk…

It’s OK, he’s gone, your party has been humiliated and the devastation is slowly ebbing.

And you neocons are going to watch as your RINO gets a second dose of your putrid medicine.

Enjoy this summer and fall, fake conservatives, because I sure am.

Off to do some good in my community, you guys spit and spew here though…

• Link
• Report this comment

JDW, in the history of this nation, the ratio of regulations that have had a negative financial effect on business vs. a positive financial effect on business is something on the order of 20:1.

Even being generous in the extreme and cutting that in half, the negative impact of 50 more significant-level regulations would have cost American businesses over $4 billion.

Yes, you really are deranged.

• Link
• Report this comment

I see AmVet didn’t bother reading that 54 page memo, Poor Boy presented in his link.

Nor did AmVet offer any “new thoughts” he may have gleaned from having done so.

The Business Roundtable sent Team Obama a long memo about the various policies and regulations that were inhibiting growth back in June of 2010.

businessroundtable.org/news-center/business-roundtable-letter-to-the-white-house-on-policy-burdens-inhibi/

No surprise here!

AmVet @ 8:19You elected the worst president in modern American history.

Cataclysmic bad. Th eman who left office is disgrace with insanely low approval ratings. 18% by Independents!

schnirt

• Link
• Report this comment

The Business Roundtable is an accumulation of the top 1% of the 1%…a group of fellow board members whose primary concern is that their ‘retained.earnings’ tax rates (or capital gains if you prefer) – AKA the money they make on exercising stock options, doesn’t go up. And furthermore all you said, Kyle, was that small business was ‘concerned’ about regulation…where’s the beef? What we’ve got here is the result of the ‘anti-branding’ campaign that the Repug (opposite of libtard) propaganda machine has devoted their entire existence to. They have managed to convince people that this administration, and specifically this ‘illegitimate’ President, is not only inept but evil as well. Perceptions in this instance is their reality…and you’re simply feeding it.

What I wonder is come Nov 7, and Obama’s re-elected, what are you gonna do then? You’ll no longer have the goal/motivation of keeping him from a second term, so what now? Impeachment? Worse? Cause we damn well know that Repugs will never agree to cooperate to accomplish something that might be ‘a good thing’…it just ain’t in em. Is it Kyle?

• Link
• Report this comment

That link supplied for number of employees per business does not work, but it is wrong or one is reading it incorrectly to think only 21 million are employed in corps under 20 people. Last I checked, there were 20+ million single person corps alone, which would equal that number.

• Link
• Report this comment

“What I wonder is come Nov 7, and Obama’s re-elected, what are you gonna do then?”

We’ll just suffer through the second Obama recession, Dirty Dawg.

Just like you will.

Because he has no plan to continue this weak recovery that is any different than his first, failed plan, and he has nobody around him capable of convincing him he has to work with a divided Congress, rather than campaign against them, which hasn’t worked, either.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius,

You are making the same mistake as Kyle WIngfield by accepting what both sides are saying about job creation without checking it out for yourself.

For the second time you have responded without any evidence to support your claim–besides the fact that politicians on both sides say its true and cite data. Well, what data? Show me the data and I will believe you.

Go do some homework and try again.

In the meantime you can read this article that does show small businesses are hiring at higher rates than big firms–but notice the author does not (and cannot) make the claim that they are hiring more workers than big firms…because they aren’t.

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2012-04-26/small-business-job-creation-is-stronger-than-we-think

Just because both sides say it does not make it a fact. Maybe you do not understand politics, but both sides have something to gain by convincing trusting fools like you that they are looking out for the little guy and small businesses.

• Link
• Report this comment

Reading those numbers correctly, as of 2008 there were roughly 60 million employed by firms with less than 100 employees……….

• Link
• Report this comment

Right, but I thought we were talking about job creators. Independent workers are not considered the small businesses that politicians are claiming contribute to so much job creation.

• Link
• Report this comment

“Right, but I thought we were talking about job creators.”

We are……it matters not where that one job is created, it is a net gain. A good business climate without hindering regulations would also boost the increase of these single person entities, hence more job “creation”.

• Link
• Report this comment

md,

I could be wrong but it seems like you and others are making the case that small businesses (and I will include those who work for themselves as small businesses) are creating more jobs than big firms. I think the evidence disproves this, but I want to move on to a more important point.

If the claim is true that small businesses (however you want to classify them) are creating so many more jobs than big firms, wouldn’t that defeat the other claim that regulations are killing the job creators.

You can’t have it both ways.

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone once believed in a geocentric universe too.

• Link
• Report this comment

“If the claim is true that small businesses (however you want to classify them) are creating so many more jobs than big firms, wouldn’t that defeat the other claim that regulations are killing the job creators. ”

You didn’t pass any logic courses when you were in school, did you, j nes?

Your question doesn’t take into effect what could be created if regulations were not hindering job creation.

Oh, and since you still insist on remaining ignorant about the job creation aspect of small businesses, this link to the SBA probably won’t interest you (found it in 30 seconds, btw). Oh, and be sure to NOT look at bullet points 2 and 4 under Item #2. You wouldn’t want to learn anything.

Class dismissed.

• Link
• Report this comment

Hey tiberius…somehow I can’t imagine ‘you people’ (to borrow an expression) just ’suffering through’ the next Obama administration. My bet is that they’ll (aka you) resolve to engage in as much obstructionism as you have over the last three-plus. You’ve heard the old story of four guys that played golf religiously every Saturday, until one day one of the members dropped dead on the fourth hole. Later the survivors were responding to words of sympathy from others with, ‘Yes it was terrible about ‘Ol Charlie’. I mean it took us six hours to finish’ cause after the fourth hole it was hit the ball and drag Charlie.’. Not that Republicans actually died, although for practical purposes they might as well have, but for these three and a half years it’s been ‘Hit the ball and drag the Republicans.’. Its a wonder there’s been any progress at all.

• Link
• Report this comment

” My bet is that they’ll (aka you) resolve to engage in as much obstructionism as you have over the last three-plus.”

Your point, Dirty Dawg?

Why wouldn’t the Republicans try to obstruct that which is destroying us and has proven to be ineffective? That is the epitome of the role of the opposition – don’t allow the other guy to make things worse.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius,

I was almost proud of you. But you forgot the link. You are so close to supporting a claim with evidence. Don’t quit now!

• Link
• Report this comment

“What is it Tiberius that you specifically object to.”

Jim, if you actually READ my post, it is entirely clear what I object to. For anyone to state as you did shows incredible ignorance. Not only that, naivete. What do you think you’re paying for, Jim? More importantly, what do you think you’re NOT paying for?

Again, instead of running up deficits each year, let’s just adjust the taxes on EVERYBODY so that all that clean air and water, safe food, security and entitlements actually get paid for? And since it’s roughly double what we’re paying today, instead of just taking 1/3rd of your paycheck, let’s make sure we take 2/3rds of it.

Maybe if you everybody actually stated contributing their fair share of what all this costs, you might not keep whining for more of it.

• Link
• Report this comment

The real problem with Kyle’s analysis is that the three “problems” that he cites are not independent variables. Let’s assume that the study cited was in fact a legitimate exercise and not merely a sort of sophisticated push poll along the lines of “Do you think that Obamacare is A) threat B) menace C) unconstitutional power grab; the answer that any respondent gives will alter his perceptions of the other two. For instance, if the respondent chooses “regulations,” his response to low sales is necessarily less, and vice versa. A more valuable way of looking at the question would be to ask small business owners to rate each segment individually, without regard to the other two. Maybe set the questions with a sliding 1-10 scale.

Also, if small business is less worried about sales (revenue); isn’t that a good thing

• Link
• Report this comment

Reining in the Obama Administration’s Regulatory Agenda

The bureaucracy should serve, not rule the people. As Ranking Member of the EPW Committee, Senator Inhofe oversees activities at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other energy and environmental agencies under the Obama Administration. While regulations are needed to protect the environment and ensure clean air and water, Senator Inhofe has fought against regulations that destroy jobs, raise energy costs for consumers, and provide no meaningful environmental benefits. The following is a list of the regulations Senator Inhofe challenged, several of the initiatives he led to beat them back, and efforts to highlight the Obama Administration’s overreaching bureaucracy:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=87c1303a-7e9c-9af9-7d81-37771c380b87

I’m quite sure the resident Marxist Fascist BIG GUB’MENT Socialist who never fail to disagree completely with anything Kyle has to say would find every obumer regulation Senator Inhofe fought against as totally unjust and costly to small business.

• Link
• Report this comment

NFIB Small Business Coalition Launches Nine-State Effort to Stop President Obama’s Regulatory Tidal Wave

Concerns Mount over 4,100 Regulations Pending in Washington That Could Cost More than Half a Trillion Dollars

WASHINGTON, July 18, 2012 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The next four years could bring a tidal wave of costly federal regulations impacting U.S. businesses and consumers, according to new analysis by the National Federation of Independent Business’ coalition, Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations. There are currently 4,128 federal regulations in the pipeline which, if implemented, will impose costs of more than $515 billion on the U.S. economy.

“With small business confidence at an all-time low, this tidal wave of impending federal regulations is coming at the worst time imaginable, creating more uncertainty for small business owners and further stalling their economic recovery,” said Susan Eckerly, Vice President of Public Policy for the NFIB.

Over the past four years, regulations have cost American businesses and taxpayers more than $138 billion, according to NFIB’s analysis of the Office of Management and Budget’s semi-annual regulatory agenda and a recent report by the Heritage Foundation. NFIB estimates that regulations under consideration in Washington could cost more than a half trillion dollars when implemented, quadrupling the cost of regulations finalized during the previous four years…

…Poll after poll demonstrates that regulatory burdens are a top reason why small businesses are not hiring at pace with previous years. In fact, a Gallup poll earlier this year found 85 percent of small businesses surveyed weren’t hiring, and about half cited government regulations as the reason.

Last year, Small Businesses for Sensible Regulations along with the National Federation of Independent Businesses sent an open letter to President Obama proposing five commonsense principles to help reform the regulatory system. They include: giving small businesses a greater voice in the federal regulatory process; providing assistance to small businesses before assessing penalties; requiring major federal rules to undergo rigorous cost-benefit analysis; basing regulatory decisions only on objective, validated science; and requiring more transparency and accountability in the regulatory process.

http://uspolitics.einnews.com/pr_news/105928672/nfib-small-business-coalition-launches-nine-state-effort-to-stop-president-obama-s-regulatory-tidal-wave

Bye for now.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…”JDW, in the history of this nation, the ratio of regulations that have had a negative financial effect on business vs. a positive financial effect on business is something on the order of 20:1.”

So speketh Tiberius of course the rest of us know you just pulled that out of your….oppps forgot that’s where you keep your brain.

• Link
• Report this comment

@ncgreybr…”The only thing that keep me down is people coming in and whining about Obama and then not spending money”

AMEN…the Party of No PR machine is the biggest drag going.

• Link
• Report this comment

JDW conveniently leaves out the link the the SBA I provided. The SBA, of course, is also known as the Small Business Administration, an arm of the U.S. Government, and one that would, you know, actually KNOW about the number of new jobs small businesses create.

Ooops!

Facts are such troublesome things, even when they have to be handed to liberals.

• Link
• Report this comment

If that is the case Kyle then conservative pundits like yourself and small business owners need to be honest and forthright enough to point out which regulations are causing the problems and why so that they can be fixed or discarded. Otherwise all you and the small business owners are doing by whining about regulations is making yourself look like your above the rules the rest of us must play by – that you don’t care if people die from eating tainted food like peanut butter simply because the regulations put into place to prevent tainted food from reaching the average persons table is an impediment to getting making money.

• Link
• Report this comment

See Tiberius your problem is you don’t think…the sba says “small business generated 65 percent of net new jobs over the past 17 years.”. That leads to folks like you waving the banner for local small business, which is important but does not drive job growth.

As the research shows what drives job growth is NEW businesses which are by definition s
“small” for a time then GROW into large companies…think Google and Facebook.

• Link
• Report this comment

“that you don’t care if people die from eating tainted food like peanut butter simply because the regulations put into place to prevent tainted food from reaching the average persons table is an impediment to getting making money.”

Oh, holy crap! Not this nonsense again. . .

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius, as I have noted before, a large part of our problem is people like you that can’t process information that challenges your closely held opinions.

• Link
• Report this comment

O’ BTW tibeius…i wouldn’t exactly call work by The University of Maryland and The Bureau Economic Research

An” obscure white paper by some liberal hacks.”

/www.nber.org/

• Link
• Report this comment

@tiberius…you must be too dumb to find the link. Psssst…the sba gets a lot of its research from the nber and dumbs it down into sound bytes that folks like you inverably misinterpret.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…since you can only process sound bytes I dumbed down for you…

“Haltiwanger and two other economists showed, in a study of 32,000 companies over 30 years, that small businesses no more than 5 years old — that’s about 40% of them — are the only ones that create more jobs each year than they cut.
In 2005, for instance, more than 99% of the 2.5 million net new private-sector jobs in the United States came from these start ups”

It’s not your local dry cleaner, Restaurant or retailer that creates the jobs. Wasting time in that segment is the problem…you want to foster growth…it’s the funding stupid.

• Link
• Report this comment

Everyone once believed in a geocentric universe too.

Obviously j nes doesn’t know much about Astronomy or Einsteinian Relativity either……

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t know who this survey actually surveyed, but ALL my friends in business cite the same concern – and it isn’t regulations. It’s lack of customers. But regulations are a concern; mostly state and local that take the biggest toll, and the most unreasonable to resolve.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Small Business Administration doesn’t fund anything. All they do is assume the debt when the loan fails.

Kinda like the Housing Bubble the libs created that wiped out the economy.

Nice try, however.

• Link
• Report this comment

For my sweetie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14nD-QMjFvI

• Link
• Report this comment

I dedicate the next one to Obama’s re-election campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3p_xAToFzck&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

“Yellow Brick Road” was an awesome album, all except for the title track. “Grey Seal” kicks some major butt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsozyGR6Eo4

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty–How’s this for some poetry??

Tune me in to the wild side of life
I’m an innocent young child sharp as a knife
Take me to the garretts where the artists have died
Show me the courtrooms where the judges have lied
.
If I was an artist who paints with his eyes
I’d study my subject and silently cry
Cry for the darkness to come down on me
For confusion to carry on turning the wheel
.

And each day I learn just a little bit more
I don’t know why but I do know what for
If we’re all going somewhere let’s get there soon
Oh this song’s got no title just words and a tune

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRw2EROYGNM&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

Last one from GYBR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOJlNQMzVM&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVLZiDlTXGc&feature=related

• Link
• Report this comment

There is PLENTY if not more State and local regulation, enacted these last few years by republican lawmakers that are just as much as a hinderance. Don’t raise taxes, but raise as many fees and put up as much red tape as possible. Same thing as far as I am concerned.

• Link
• Report this comment

The title track from Yellow Brick Road was just fine. It was Benny and the Jets that sucked…

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In my little corner of heaven, where we could outvote and dictate to Hillbilly D if we wanted, most everybody I run into is against the upcoming tsplost, but yesterday I ran across an outcropping of signs in support. Those folks had the cutesy green “untie Atlanta” signs everywhere so I suppose they were just citizens concerned about traffic. I’m sure the fact that they are also one of the country’s largest concrete concerns had nothing to do with it.

• Link
• Report this comment

With the high cost of oil, the outrageous price of health care and the fact that wall street and the banks have made off with people’s life savings….It appears that no one has been doing any regulating.

• Link
• Report this comment

@Tiberius…”He just hates being shown up as being wrong in public.”

The next time you accomplish that feat will be you first.

• Link
• Report this comment

I don’t think facts mean what you think they mean.

• Link
• Report this comment

Tiberius – pulling the tail of the left AND right when needed

July 21st, 2012
10:18 pm
He just hates being shown up as being wrong in public

Perhaps brucie shouldn’t show-up in public Tiberius.

• Link
• Report this comment

This country is now at the point where regulation barely exists… but as long as someone gets their money no matter what they do it’s all OK. The new American way! Have no respect for the nation… just your own wallet.

• Link
• Report this comment

Truth is Kyle, when you have so many regulations that not one area of your economy or of your life itself for that matter that isn’t regulated in some shape, form or fashion by the government then it should be obvious to any sane liberty loving mind that we have too many regulations, not too few.

It is time to peel back the layers of government overreach and find what works and what doesn’t, keep what we really need and get rid of what we can do better without. Of course, after the Supreme Court ruling on obumercare, which gave the federal government unlimited powers to regulate everything, it is going to be nearly impossible for this government to exercise regulatory prudence with that much unbridled power.

• Link
• Report this comment

With all the smart people writing comments. Would like to pose a question? Just what is the role of government?

• Link
• Report this comment

DJIA down 25% from Bush 2’s inauguration to Obama’s inauguration. DJIA up 60%. I think it’s pretty easy to see who has been better for business.

• Link
• Report this comment

Thank you Michael for answering. This is the fundamental question we need to discuss in this country today. And we should demand that our politicians address this issue.

As i understand it….when man entered a “social contract” to submit to the rules of government..it was understood that government’s role was to do only for us what we as individuals could not do for ourselves. Build roads, schools, maintain a national defense, coin money, establish liberty and justice for all….and maintain an economic climate where the laws of supply and demand can operate.

It would be great to see the political and economic issues of today debated in that context.
Any law or regulation that crossed this boundary made it an illegitimate government.

• Link
• Report this comment

bibleman, the stock market might show you how a select few companies are doing as regards their performance based on profits, revenues and meting expectations of same, but it hasn’t been an indicators of the health of the American economy for over 30 years.

In short, your point would have had the same validity if you had said that it was rainy when Bush left office, and sunny when Obama took office, so Obama has been better for the weather.

• Link
• Report this comment

“The role of government is a function of the governed and whatever they think is best at the time.”

Not even remotely true, JDW, as the Declaration of Independence was NOT a document which described the role of government (not that English is your strong suit, anyway). It did describe, however, the perils of government and the role of MAN when government became unjust. In short, it was, and remains, nothing but a Declaration of Independence.

If your above statement were true, there would be no need for a U.S. Constitution, yet the Founding Fathers decided we needed one of those to keep your statement from becoming true. What you describe is a democracy, which the Founding Fathers particularly loathed. In fact, the origin of the word “democrat” is “one who panders to the masses”.

Epic fail again, JDW.

• Link
• Report this comment

Your inability to refute is acknowledged, JDW.

• Link
• Report this comment

@markv…not sure exactly where you were heading…the role of government is a function of the governed’s wishes at a point in time. In the US those wishes, in their current form is expressed in the body of law and regulations, subject to the current interpretation of the boundries of the Constitution. Which of course can be changed by the governed as desired at any point in time.

• Link
• Report this comment

@markv…got it…forgot to to take the blather of Tiberius into context.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Declaration of Independence doesn’t even address the US Government, most likely because there wasn’t one when it was written.

Wrong again, dummycrats.

• Link
• Report this comment

Yeah I believe you brucie wilcox, those old coots Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Jay etc. did not have a clue about what the role government should be when Jefferson wrote down the words of the Declaration. Neither did Madison or Jay when they wrote the federalist papers.

By the way the Constitution codified everything the Declaration spelled out before the we became a nation.

Government’s role is to protect our rights, not your’s and socialist MarkV’s wishes, personal thought or wants.

• Link
• Report this comment

MarkV…the role of the government is to do for us what we as individuals cannot do for ourselves,

IS NON SENSE!

• Link
• Report this comment

@jezel…”that the role of the government is to do for us what we as individuals cannot do for ourselves,”

That is a line of thought that was put forth in American history by Thomas Jefferson as a discription of what he thought government should do. I happen to think it is a good yardstick, but as mark points out the “governed decide what their government should do as a better aternative to individual efforts”

• Link
• Report this comment

We can’t even pass a budget

Had Senator Hatch been able to get one more vote most likely we would have a budget and a balanced one at that in the same way state governments do.

Then again thanks to old Woodrow Big Gub’ment Wilson what we have is a debt ceiling that can be raised and has it ever from that day unto this one.

• Link
• Report this comment

For example, creating an equitable health care market is beyond the purview of an individual and fair game for government.

Mostly because of government regulations.

• Link
• Report this comment

Government is to do for us, what we cannot do for ourselves?

Where is that line of thinking in the Declaration or in the Constitution?

Might sound good as a movie script for Hollywood but it isn’t codified.

• Link
• Report this comment

It is found through out the constitution…..that was the purpose of each article and particularly the reason for the Bill of Rights. To limit the powers and spell them out.

• Link
• Report this comment

jezel

If you are talking to me about limited government you are wasting your time. I more dogmatic on limiting government than you are that I can assure you.

By the way, Federalist papers 41 and 45 speaking directly to limiting the powers of the Federal government, it ain’t just a summation my friend. And it was mostly codified under Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution.

• Link
• Report this comment

Allow me to finish JDW’s Lincoln quote-

In all that the people can individually do as well for themselves, government ought not to interfere.

Just sayin…

• Link
• Report this comment

In case anyone wonders what type of omnipotent(fascist regulating) government these few leftist “Social Democrats” on Kyle’s blog want you and I to live under, take a relaxing read on the topic of “Social Democracy”. (It parallels some of Karl Marx thinking.)

Social democracy is a political ideology that considers itself to be a form of reformist democratic socialism.[1] Social democracy rejects the “either/or” polarization interpretation of capitalism versus socialism.[2] It claims that fostering a progressive evolution of capitalism will gradually result in the evolution of capitalist economy into socialist economy.[3] Social democracy argues that all citizens should be legally entitled to certain social rights. These are made up of universal access to public services such as: education, health care, workers’ compensation, and other services including child care and care for the elderly.[4] Social democracy is connected with the trade union labour movement and supports collective bargaining rights for workers.[5] Contemporary social democracy advocates freedom from discrimination based on differences of: ability/disability, age, social class, ethnicity, gender, language, race, religion, and sexual orientation.[6] Most social democratic parties are affiliated with the Socialist International.[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Hey, it will do everything for you that you cannot do for yourself.

• Link
• Report this comment

Are we all Comrades now, Kyle?

• Link
• Report this comment

The Fortune 500 is regulated to so bad, they collectively made more income in 2011 than ever before.

FACT

• Link
• Report this comment

Who’s been talking about the Fortune 500? The conversation is about small business.

Try comprehension, you might like it.

• Link
• Report this comment

The Fortune 500 is regulated to so bad, they collectively made more income in 2011 than ever before.

And if they all did it legally, so what?

The combined earnings of the Fortune 500 corporations rose 16 percent from 2010

Well gee, 16% is about the average profit margin for the pharmaceutical sector thanks to government regulations on re-importation of FDA approved drugs… good to see the others are catching up so to speak.

• Link
• Report this comment

About the immutability of the U.S. Constitution from Thomas Jefferson’s perspective, from pages 378 – 379 of Saul K. Padover’s book, entitled “Jefferson,” published in 1942 by Konecky & Konecky by special arrangement with Harcourt, Brace & Company. Padover received a doctorate degree in history from the University of Chicago and was a Professor of History at the University of California and at the New School for Social Research in New York City. He was the author of 30 books, six of which were about Jefferson:
————————————————————-

“Thus Jefferson accepted the inevitable. Ultimately the growth of American industrialization led to the ruin of the agricultural South. Even in Jefferson’s lifetime Congress passed a tariff which hit him and his fellow agrarians hard. Jefferson had to pay three times the prewar prices for shirtings, for example.

“Jefferson’s change of position on the subject of industrialization illustrates a basic quality of his mind, that of flexibility. He viewed the world as mutable. In his eyes nothing was permanent and nothing was rigidly fixed. Men changed, institutions changed, ideas changed. There was constant growth, and constant decay. The life cycle applied to nature as well as to institutions. Even the Constitution of the United States, which was the bulwark of American freedom, was not immutable. At the age of seventy-three Jefferson said that the Constitution was not ‘too sacred to be touched’ but was a human institution that should be revised periodically when needed:

“(Jefferson): ‘Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. . . .I know. . . that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. . . .As. . . new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy, as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors. . . .Each generation. . . has. . .a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness. . . .a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution.’

“His (Jefferson’s) conclusion in the matter of laws and institutions was that they perpetually subject to change for the benefit of humanity. ‘Nothing then,’ he told Major John Cartwright in 1824, ‘is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.’ ”

(Note: The above information from Padover’s book was footnoted to reference, “Notices, Letters, etc. Respecting the Library Manuscripts of Thomas Jefferson,” typescript, Library of Congress, 1898, vol. 7, page 359.)

• Link
• Report this comment

No tears from me just because companies and individuals are still making money before government regulates them out of making their profits. It would make me happier if a lot of those government regulations that protect big business from small business competition were gone. whimper whimper

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh Oh

Forgot how to read you mean?

Like this part in my statement: re-importation of “FDA approved drugs”

Well gee, 16% is about the average profit margin for the pharmaceutical sector thanks to government regulations on re-importation of FDA approved drugs… good to see the others are catching up so to speak.

• Link
• Report this comment

Guess we need more incidents like the one a week or so ago where the pharmaceutical was fined a huge some for FRAUD.

Nah, guess we need more of what I already pointed out many times before now which you didn’t read or chose to ignore then: We need regulators who do their dang jobs and don’t get a regulatory job via the revolving door process to regulate the sector where they were employed in sometimes only a few months earlier.

• Link
• Report this comment

Right…we do not need the government doing anything for us.. under any pretense.. that we can do for ourselves.

The question of how much regulation is the debate. If the regulations hinder competition then we do not need them. So we should ask ourselves… how do we create an atmosphere where more oil companies can enter the market….how can we graduate more doctors…how can we create competition among the insurance companies and drug manufactures…what can we do to protect our money in the banks…what do we do with the investment instruments created by Wall street that drive prices up and down.

The only regulations we need are those that stimulate competition in the market. Unfortunately, we as individuals cannot implement this. We can identify them and demand that our elected officials follow through.

• Link
• Report this comment

Uh Oh

July 22nd, 2012
5:22 pm

Well, you just stripped away any value in your argument for regulations with that good luck comment.

It’s going to take a great deal more than luck to set right the regulatory policies this country actually needs in place and the right people doing those regulatory jobs. I don’t care much for Gub’Ment workers, particularly unionized ones, but I care even less than that about having to do without the few government employees and the few well needed regulations I actually must have to protect my rights and property and that of all others.

I’m for a limited federal government not states of anarchy.

• Link
• Report this comment

MHS

Well is you vote Republican then you are aware that Republican Presidents are just as apt to have their folks place industry people over and in departments that regulate the industries they came from. You will be able to produce not a thing that says different

So if you are against it as you say and vote Republican, you are being a hypocrite on that issue.

Nothing more, nothing less

• Link
• Report this comment

md

I’m just saying it is what it is. Didn’t praise it or knock it.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

It’s all about supply and demand along the resources it takes to meet that demand.

• Link
• Report this comment

Many people in the nation today believe, as did Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, that governmental social programs which serve the general welfare or “common good” of the public, such as Social Security, Medicare (later established), public education, and the recent Affordable Health Act, aka Obamacare, do serve the American people’s best interest, and that these programs within government are reflections of government function at its highest level – by serving the human rights of all of its citizens.

The words of Thomas Jefferson, which I have excerpted from my 5:03 p.m. post, above:

“Each generation. . . has. . .a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness. . .”

From Saul Padover’ book, highlighted from my same 5:03 p.m. post:

“His (Jefferson’s) conclusion in the matter of laws and institutions was that they perpetually subject to change for the benefit of humanity. ‘Nothing then,’ he told Major John Cartwright in 1824, ‘is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man.’ ”

FDR believed that the government could serve to further the human rights of all of its citizens, as he outlined in his final State of the Union Address, that part of which is often referred to as FDR’s concept of “America’s Second Bill of Rights.” See link below:

http://www.fdrheritage.org/bill_of_rights.htm

=========================================================

I realize that my thoughts, above, are not consistent with those who are presently having a discussion about the role of government on this blog. I simply wanted to get my thoughts published for readers to consider another point-of-view regarding the role of government. I am not interested in debating others this evening on this issue; I simply desired a variant position to be presented.
Thank you.

• Link
• Report this comment

jezel @5:27 pm

“If the regulations hinder competition then we do not need them.

Yeah, I am sure the competition will get us clean air and water.

• Link
• Report this comment

md @6:08 pm

“Demand means absolutely nothing if there is no product to meet it.”

Talk about putting a cart in front of a horse. The product results from demand (either actually expressed or perceived), not the other way round.

• Link
• Report this comment

md @6:13

You were correct when you said “If those programs (government) bankrupt a nation, they’ve done much more harm than good”. Absolutely!

The trouble is, seems liberals cannot visualize a country going broke. It seems impossible for them. They cannot believe that the golden giveaways and costly containments can far outcost any amount of money this country can produce. Such an attitude suffocates us slowly but surely..

• Link
• Report this comment

md

And it still is supply and demand. If you want to get technical about the details, so be it, however it is still supply and demand.

If there is not a current supply, some one, some company in some country will provide it. May not be on “demand”, but overall the demand will be met, one way or another

• Link
• Report this comment

“seems liberals cannot visualize a country going broke.”

Reagan and Bush Jr are not considered liberals. They loved to spend just like most in government including Democrats

You are dismissed for being biased and one sided in regards to a spending issues that has plagued the inner core of both parties for years.

• Link
• Report this comment

md

You can live in an “if this, if that” world if you like.

Your choice

• Link
• Report this comment

UH OH 6:27

You are dismissed for trying to blame Bush for an Obama problem. Bush is not here running up a bigger debt. OBAMA IS.

Now go sit in the corner.

• Link
• Report this comment

“No company will make a product for which it does not expect a demand.”

Perceived demand has been the downfall of many a product………..it’s called an educated guess………

• Link
• Report this comment

Bear in mind that our Defense Budget is greater than the next 10 countries combined, including the Defense Budgets of Chinat and many European nations – in combination.

Also, bear in mind that the U.S. had a surplus in the year 2000, even with entitlements, (which do need long-range adjustment, but not through privatization of them). France has just lowered its Social Security age to 60 from 62, and in America we are considering raising our S.S. age from 66 to 70, yet the U.S. is still sending Defense Budget funding to France (which was originally designated for the purpose of defense against Russia during the Cold War, now a long past need). Some have even questioned if France may be able to lower its Social Security age because we are still sending defense funds to France – for long past defense needs.

The American people will have to prioritize their distribution of tax funds by their values, i.e. an out of proportion defense budget or a more equitable budget which can accommodate social programs for citizens. Perhaps a return to the Clinton tax rate will help. As mentioned, America did have a surplus in 2000.

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

It isn’t that you lack cognitive thinking skills and ability to see the entire picture. It is that you do not want to utilize them because you are afraid to get outside of your little partisan bubble. It makes you feel better and provides self esteem for you. It is ok. There are many on the left and right just like you

• Link
• Report this comment

Wouldn’t it be nice if Dusty ever told us her recipe for getting the country out of debt she writes so much about?

• Link
• Report this comment

Dusty

Think if it as a “comfort zone” that many on the right and left love to live in. Takes less thought and gives those who live in that world, warm and fuzzies

• Link
• Report this comment