Obama shares his beliefs about business

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Contract law? Patent law? Antitrust law? Hellooooo?

So you're claiming that these sets of laws only affect or apply to business owners? Helloooo?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Contract law? Patent law? Antitrust law? Hellooooo?

The fact remains the low wage earner has risked nothing, is not as responsible for the business, does not get the call in the middle of the night for problems to be resolved or worries about much of anything other than getting a check at the end of the week. Why should the business person who provides a work environment free of issue courtesy of government regulations pay more taxes? Did the government pay for all required to make the work place safe and free of hazard for the low wage earner?

The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.

Especially when he's already paid into it like everybody else did and a lot MORE than most did already.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by August

So you're claiming that these sets of laws only affect or apply to business owners? Helloooo?

No, I was rebutting your ridiculous claim that laws and regulations only serve to negatively affect business owners.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The fact remains the low wage earner has risked nothing, is not as responsible for the business, does not get the call in the middle of the night for problems to be resolved or worries about much of anything other than getting a check at the end of the week. Why should the business person who provides a work environment free of issue courtesy of government regulations pay more taxes? Did the government pay for all required to make the work place safe and free of hazard for the low wage earner?

If a business owner with so much at risk has so much more to lose than a low wage earner, shouldn't they have a greater interest in keeping it safe and protected? Something that the government does through laws and defense?

Originally Posted by August

Especially when he's already paid into it like everybody else did and a lot MORE than most did already.

At the lowest level in decades. How come when lower than expected revenues throw the budget out of whack, raising taxes on those most able to pay is seen as eeeeeeeevil socialism? And not even raising taxes, if you want to get technical about it. It's actually allowing tax cuts to expire. If everything was so hunky dory under Reagan, or in some idealized version of 1950s America, why is it wrong to go back to the tax levels we had then?

[artao]

@august: when I re-read my post just now, I myself cringed at my use of "you anti-obama people".
sorry mate. don't mean to do lumping there. however, it's pretty clear from what you're saying that you are indeed anti-obama.
MY point in saying "I am not an Obama supporter" was merely to make clear that I'm not defending the guy. not to anti-lump myself.
If you REALLY believe Obama is ... "that way" re: the out-of-context quote, then I'm really at a loss for what further to say. wow. what led you to that opinion, i can't help but wonder.
If you plan on voting Romney merely because you don't want to support Obama ... I'll try not to be offensive here ... YOU are part of the problem.
This whole "two party illusion" needs to f**kin stop. end. die. both parites are now corporatist tools that say and do the same things in a a different manner.

As far as business not being built by one person. 100% true. At the VERY LEAST, every business depends on customers. No customers, no business. So yeah: If you've built a business, you did NOT do it "by yourself". Period. any further argument on that point inherently contains logical fallacies. Period.

@august: you appeared to say in one of your posts that government owes its success to business.
um.
that is insane.
i sure hope that's not what you meant to say.

Now the contentious part: In my opinion, especially in a capitalist society, businesses SHOULD bear the highest brunt of taxes. Part of the purpose of government is to protect its citizens. Anyone who debates that point .. well ... wow. I'd be at a loss. ... That includes protecting us from businesses. Especially corporations. As such, seeing how businesses and corporations do the most damage to society, they should bear the highest tax burden.

and if anyone cares to debate whether businesses and corporations do the most damage to society, perhaps we should start another thread. .. I'm down.
EDITED to not single out a single person in my final sentence.

[artao]

also, the business owner would NOT be providing a work environment as safe as what we have now were it not for government intervening and enacting laws to stop reprehensible behaviours.
Read "The Jungle" if you haven't.
Businesses have proved over and over and over that their only concern is profit, not humanity.
And, since they are profiting from humanity, they do indeed deserve to pay a higher tax rate.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

No, I was rebutting your ridiculous claim that laws and regulations only serve to negatively affect business owners.

I gather you didn't pick up on my clever use of the phrase "far more than" because I made no such claim.

[AVGWarhawk]

If a business owner with so much at risk has so much more to lose than a low wage earner, shouldn't they have a greater interest in keeping it safe and protected? Something that the government does through laws and defense?

Yes. This is why he pays taxes. His tax does not stop when his business opens. He has to follow up on the rules and regulations established by the government for the workplace. This is done out of his own pocket. If he fails to post the "free" work place signage provided by the Labor Department/OSHA he is fined or shut down. These things do not happen on their own nor is it free. Machines need to be inspected for safety and all safety devices are in place. If not, he is fined or shut down. Joe, the low wage earner, he worries about Joe. End of story. The business man has to worry about all under the factory roof. Let's throw in he has to pay more tax as well. If I was the businessman I would throw in the towel, hand up my spurs and sell the business. Who needs the headache with the added dose of acid stomach from forking over yet more money because, well, he used a road to build his business.

also, the business owner would NOT be providing a work environment as safe as what we have now were it not for government intervening and enacting laws to stop reprehensible behaviours.
Read "The Jungle" if you haven't.
Businesses have proved over and over and over that their only concern is profit, not humanity.
And, since they are profiting from humanity, they do indeed deserve to pay a higher tax rate.

It does not belay the fact the business owner has to abide by the rules established over decades. He has to provide a safe working environment or be fined/shutdown. I have read "The Jungle" and it has very little bearing on this subject. You naturally assume all business men find a means to an end to make the work environment unsafe for profit. You can not assume. Humanity is profiting from the business. Goods are manufactured. You benefit. Perhaps you should pay more working with your logic. No one deserves to pay more. Sorry Joe the beer drinker did not aspire to greater aspirations in life and is satisfied with drinking beer, belching and having no other responsibility other then showing up to work. I think he should pay nothing in taxes for is lack of doing "nothing much".

[August]

Originally Posted by artao

If you plan on voting Romney merely because you don't want to support Obama ... I'll try not to be offensive here ... YOU are part of the problem.

I'm not anti-Obama. I'm pro "best man for the job". Based on the past three years of expensive boondoggles I don't see Obama being as good as Romney could be in that regard.

The important thing though is who gets control of Congress. I prefer having them and the Executive be of different parties. Gridlock being the best form of Government for the common man.

@august: you appeared to say in one of your posts that government owes its success to business.
um.
that is insane.
i sure hope that's not what you meant to say.

Of course government owes it's success to business! Who do you think colonized the west? The Government? Who pays the salaries that give the government it's income tax revenue?

Without commerce there is no government, only masters and slaves.

[AVGWarhawk]

It's a symbiotic relationship.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by August

I'd call it a Freudian Slip

Or could it simply be projection. It is pretty apparent that Obama never built anything, or run anything business wise his whole life. He has no idea what it takes to build a business or create a product the market wants. Somebody else "did it" for him.

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

And not even raising taxes, if you want to get technical about it. It's actually allowing tax cuts to expire. If everything was so hunky dory under Reagan, or in some idealized version of 1950s America, why is it wrong to go back to the tax levels we had then?

My goodness, why can't liberals ever see anything past DailyKos graphs and charts? The reason we can't go back to "those levels" of the 1950's is because the country and economy is not the same as back then. Back then we were paying down war debt, building industries en masse, innovating new technologies and products for the market place at rapid rates from scratch. Unemployment was relatively low, and the entitlement mentality was largely non-existent. The economic world of the 1950's just doesn't exist anymore. Government has never made it any harder to start a business or maintain one than it has now. California...Democrat heaven...is the worst place to do business and businesses are fleeing faster here than anywhere else. Actually the tax base is shrinking here and debt is exploding with what you want. Says alot.

Nowadays we take tax dollars and fund bridges to nowhere, high speed rail that nobody wants and nobody will use, bail out failed companies who produce failed products and subsidize even more failure (see GM and their electric junk cars). We now also subsidize welfare as a lifestyle rather than a temporary condition. Hell, Obama just re-wrote welfare reform of the 90's to take out the work provision making it even easier to make it a lifestyle.

Sorry, but using a word liberals love to use....we simply cannot sustain the high taxes of yesteryear because we don't produce like we used to. I can't fathom why liberals cannot see the difference between that economy, it's technological industrial output, and it's workforce and the one we have now.

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

The notion that the businessperson should pay more because something was built he uses that helped with the business is ill conceived.

Thank you. You're right, it's totally fallcious crap that Democrats are throwing around these days. Some of us pay for the roads, we all use them, but only Steve Jobs created and and directed Apple's growth from the ground up. Hate to tell Obama and Pelosi, but they had nothing to do with it.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

Nowadays we take tax dollars and fund bridges to nowhere, high speed rail that nobody wants and nobody will use, bail out failed companies who produce failed products and subsidize even more failure (see GM and their electric junk cars). We now also subsidize welfare as a lifestyle rather than a temporary condition. Hell, Obama just re-wrote welfare reform of the 90's to take out the work provision making it even easier to make it a lifestyle.

You know, half of those items were spearheaded by Republicans. Unless Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are now considered RINOs.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

You know, half of those items were spearheaded by Republicans. Unless Sarah Palin and George W. Bush are now considered RINOs.

Yes. Doing Democrat things as a Republican doesn't make them good. Many of us howled when G.W. Bush did his version of "stimulus". But I don't remember Republicans ever making welfare as a lifestyle easier. No Republican in my state want the "high speed" rail project, nor do I see many actual Republicans promoting the GM debacle and the continued subsidy to the junk electric car that, last I read, costs US taxpayers more than $200K a car to make and nobody's buying them.

Believe me, I hate when Republicans act like Democrats and adopt those policies as their own as well. We like to get rid of these types. But yes, the party doesn't matter as much as the act.

[Takeda Shingen]

Okay, but the theme of your post is 'you damn liberals', when it clearly isn't just the liberals screwing things up. My point would be that everybody is responsible for this mess, as this thing didn't just happen out of the blue. This problem was 30+ years in the making, dating all the way back to the deficit spending of the Reagan administration. Every president since then, including the Gipper, and every Congress has had his or it's hand in this problem. This was a failure of governance in truly epic manner.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

He has no idea what it takes to build a business or create a product the market wants.