Liberal Business owners - a true story of what I get to deal with right now

[LoneLaugher]

That's pretty much the "tough shit" response I was figuring on. We're also saying that to the employees of that business and their families. That's a helluva price to pay for this beast.

.

Employer provided health insurance was ALWAYS a stupid idea. But you couldnt' even put single payer on the table.

And there's the problem. Forcing businesses to be responsible for health insurance administration and costs is absolutely -- and I don't use this term often -- stupid. Everyone should have their own plan, and yes, by that I mean everyone should have at least base coverage for prevention and diagnostic services. Imagine how much that would save us in the long run, getting to illnesses before they became expensive. And imagine the size of the monkey that would come off the backs of business.

What would your suggestion be other than to allow people to be left without health insurance and to continue to have unanticipated medical expenses be the cause of 50% of our bankruptcies?

Here's my opinion, currently priced at $0.02: A four-step approach (I'll spare you the details, you'd thank me!):

1. Comprehensive cost containment including value-based insurance design, tort reform focused on the massive costs of defensive medicine, electronic records, etc.
2. Medicare-for-all, portable, individual basic chassis for preventive and diagnostic services, saving us huge money in the long run, not to mention the massive cost savings of no longer needing Medicare and Medicaid funding structures
3. Free market supplementary coverage with regulated minimum coverage where each insurer could package and price plans
4. Lower-bureaucracy national funding mechanism for low-income citizens

Significant cost savings, a healthier populace, free market plans, low-income people are helped.

My little pipe dream. Neither party would want this.

.

I might want that.

 

[Plasmaball]

edited

Why did you not address what I linked to in post #2, mainly g5000's thorough debunking of your premise that ACA would bankrupt your "clients"?

Until you do that you are just another hack.

Another reason Republicans lost.

Ravi I made the OP in frustration...to vent....and then I went to bed...I came back tonight expecting maybe 10 replies. The amount it has generated...there's NO way I can read all that. I don't know what you linked to but I am not the only one telling them the same thing. Our legal team, our bookkeepers...all of the have confirmed what I have told them. The simple reality is that this business is ready to expand but cannot because of Obamacare. In recent weeks Papa John's, Wal-Mart, and Appelbees have made similar announcements. It aint me....it's the reality of a major shift in the business climate that requires industry to take extreme measures to maintain profitability.

This is the way it's going to be from now on, Ravi. I warned you.

it was post number 2.......thats too much work for you?

yeah just like how you read the polls correctly.....

 

[mudwhistle]

^obtuse. Is you attention span really that short?

Democrats love deep spending cuts?

Well then, this compromise must be easy.

You don't even know. *shakes head*

The jokes' on you.

I know you believe in double-standards but come on.

You want to blame the GOP for not voting for it but then the Dems get a pass.


Obama sends these idiotic budget proposals to congress for a reason.

They aren't meant to be passed.


Thus endith the lesson.

Umm, I didnt give anyone a pass.

You have a serious problem arguing with ghosts bro.

Do I have to throw your quotes back in your face again?

Your problem is you're too pigheaded to admit anything even when you keep walking into it.

Are you trying to tell me you don't think the Dems are justified in rejecting the proposal because it contained evil spending cuts? So how the fuck do you expect us to get to a balanced budget smart-guy?

Yet you think it's okay to be critical of Repugs because they don't want massive tax increases during a weak economy.

According to you everything is hunky dory so why cut spending. The debt is peanuts.

Is this your position?

 

[MikeK]

h) It seems to me that some liberals have forgotten what the point of a business is. The point of a business is to generate profit. The point is NOT to make the employees lives better.

That's why we need government, because government's point is to make people's lives better.

And the best way to accomplish that is to get out of our lives.

Do you believe a society as massive and as complex as ours can function without an equally massive and complex form of government?

What are your recommendations for improving the existing size and shape of the U.S. Government?

 

[Plasmaball]

First it was big business...now the government

Alan Jackson - Little Man - YouTube

wow you are one these type of posters. Look we have enough filler posters here who can do this.

 

[Jarhead]

That's why we need government, because government's point is to make people's lives better.

And the best way to accomplish that is to get out of our lives.

Do you believe a society as massive and as complex as ours can function without an equally massive and complex form of government?

What are your recommendations for improving the existing size and shape of the U.S. Government?

Huh?

We have 50 state governments and thousands of municplaities.

All the federal government needs to do what the governors cant do.....deal with foreign relations and keep our shores safe.

As it pertains to domestic issues.....

a state governor is one man or woman with a staff of 20 who needs to deal with thousands of city and town mayors.

In DC we have 500 with elected officials hundreds of staffers who only need to deal with 50 governors

Right off the bat, I would eliminate half the staff of each elected rep.....and then I would eliminate all agencies that hhandle programs that each individual state can handlke on its own.

 

[kwc57]

You are an anomaly, and likely didn't start out (from birth) poor (neither did I). It was a summer. Before that, as a kid, you likely had regular doctor and dental (teeth are also attractive to would be employers), didn't grow up snuffing exhaust fumes...

look, we probably will never agree, and I appreciate what understanding you have, but I not only studied all this, but I lived it, and I don't attribute my tenuous position on the lowest rungs of the lower middle class on my ability to cope with the ever changing bullshit that is the economy that came to be while I was in my senior year of high school; I attribute my coping skills to the childhood that includes regular doctor and dental care, decent schools in upscale neighborhoods, being white and blonde and blue eyed in a society that rewarded that quirk of fate with preferential treatment from the cops that followed me home on drunken nights out and called my father instead of arresting me to the employers who hired me instead of someone else who might have been more dedicated to whatever business in question, that my father HAD his own business to go back to when the other hired a man to an executive position after I worked three weeks straight double shifts once he fired everyone else for smoking pot in the walk in coolers, that every advantage OF growing up middle class rather than poor led me to seek college education...

the whole "there but for the grace of god,"

rather than the FUCK YOU I GOT MINE

that I see here, on the news, in op ed pieces, from the Heritage Foundation...

it is NOT so simple. It just isn't. And the era from which you pulled yourself up from bootstraps doesn't EXIST anymore.

Barb, I just can't understand why liberals always interpret self-reliance as FUCK YOU I GOT MINE. Like jarhead said about being homeless, he learned that he had to rely on himself and no one else. Yes, most of us have families and friends and in many cases churches we can depend on. But really, truthfully, honestly when push comes to shove in the worst possible scenarios, you are the only one who can ultimately look out for you. Survival is our most basic instinct. My 19 year old son has lived a pretty nice life free of need because we could provide it to him. But he heard plenty of no's along the way as well. When he was in jr high and wanted $125 Nikes, the answer was a flat no, end of discussion. When he turned 16, he was treated the same as my wife and I. You want a vehicle, get a job and pay for it. He did. He was actice in Boy Scouts and earned his Eagle. He knows how to build a shelter from sticks and leaves and how to build a fire without a lighter. He knows how to camp in 0 degree weather comfortably. He is self-reliant. Now, along with all of that, he has learned charity and giving to those in need. There is absolutely nothing wrong with helping our fellow man and you won't find a conservative who thinks otherwise. Everyone needs a hand once in a while whether it be the short lady at the grocery store who can't reach an item on the top shelf or someone who has no money to buy food. But if there is no one there to help them.........who do they have to rely on? Themselves. Today, we have multi-generations enslaved to government entitlement programs like cows in a feedlot. They have accepted dependency as a way of life and there are far too many politicians out there willing to keep them dependent in order to stay in power. Teaching people that they are going to have to take care of themselves is far better in the long run than just giving to them. Someone else demanding me to give what is mine to make themselves feel better about helping people is bullshit. It isn't fuck you, I have mine. It's have some dignity and learn to stand on your own two feet.....because ultimately you only have yo to depend on. While liberals like to clothe conservatives in rhetoric of hate and uncaring, it really turns out to be that liberals want to feed a man a fish a day where conservatives want to teach them to fish and feed themselves for a life time. The latter is more compassionate and caring than the former.

It would be IF there were a job for every one who wanted to work. There isn't though, is there? This is where the dreaded government policy comes into play. Say business HERE is rewarded by our tax and corporate welfare to a greater extent than business that expatriates production anywhere BUT here. Say chapter eleven protections aren't available to corporations that don't hire American workers, but have nothing but a land line and answering machine in THIS country. Say ALL small businesses get the balance of THOSE savings.

My father owned his own business. I grew up knowing, because my father TOLD ME SO, that his employees put the roof over our heads and the food on our table. HE never laid anyone off in slow times, HE wrote the slow times into his business plan. We didn't lay ANYONE off because those slow times came (like snow does in the winter) WE ate a cheaper cut of meat instead (fried bologna sandwiches, and I loved them), because my father respected reciprocity.

I remember a better time for labor because I LIVED during a better time for EVERYONE.

My father had a legitimate reason to hold his head up. I was, and am RIGHTLY proud of him.

There WAS a time, once upon a time in America, when MY father wasn't the exception, but the rule. THAT was the time the fucktarded "job creators" meme of today was legitimate.

not anymore.

Not for nothing, but Regan didn't do squat for him, either.

You of course realize that there never has been and never will be a job for everyone who wants one don't you? If you think otherwise, how do you propose we do that? Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama, but that isn't there answer. Government jobs don't creat goods and services that people want or need. The government doesn't grow crops, process and package food and sell it in stores. They don't build cars.......well, that's questionable right now. Unless you move to a socialist state where the government nationalizes all the businesses and then doles out jobs, you can't provide jobs for everyone. That's a fantasy. And thos nations that use that model have had greater poverty, misery and general unhappiness than the US.

 

[Ravi]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

 

[LoneLaugher]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

 

[Ravi]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Yeah, I don't get it. And when you prove them wrong, just like the OP, they pretend you didn't.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

See how that works?

It is an article talking about ALL governments in the US.....including state and local.

Here is a snippet form the article....

Federal employment fell 1.3 percent in 2011, but for the three years it is up 1.3 percent

This thread has been about FEDERAL government spending.

Just sayin'

 

[Jarhead]

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Yeah, I don't get it. And when you prove them wrong, just like the OP, they pretend you didn't.

Actually...you jumped the gun. His post referred to FEDERAL government jobs...you cited an article that was referring to ALL government jobs....an article that admits federal employment is UP under Obama.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Now you look like the ass you have looked like since the day you came on this site.

 

[Jarhead]

Obviously federal jobs have increased greatly under Obama

Over all — including a decline of 12,000 public sector jobs in the Labor Department report for December — government employment is down 2.6 percent over the last three years, compared to a decline of 2.2 percent in the early Reagan years. That is a record.

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

yep...you do....as was shown by the article you applauded.

 

[MikeK]

Romney lost because his principles weren't in the plan like obama, the street organ grinder, passing off free zhit with means of NEVER paying for it and blaming bush.

[...]

Romney lost because the voting public saw him for what he is, an elitist laissez-faire capitalist whose orientation and objectives are diametrically opposed to the interests of working class Americans. The fact that so many rightists have difficulty perceiving, understanding and/or accepting that simple and obvious reality occurs as a divisive malignancy in contemporary American politics.

I was a registered Republican dating back to the Goldwater era and I leaned toward Conservatism. In 2003, having watched the gradual degeneration of the Conservative Republican philosophy into what is best described as unprincipled, destructively militant and greedy corporatism, I re-registered as a Democrat. Briefly stated, there is little to no similarity between today's Conservative Republican philosophy and that which attended America's golden era, the decades between the 40s and the 80s.

Romney lost because he would have been good for the One Percent but bad for America.

 

[jillian]

You guys do realize that Warren Buffet supports Obama because Obama enacts policies that make him more wealthy, right? You do realize that one of the reasons Obama wouldn't approve of the Keystone Pipeline was that Warren was going to make lots and lots of money off transporting oil that he would have lost if the Pipeline was approved? We aren't exactly talking about an altruistic man here.

Warren Buffet has been a liberal Democrat his whole life.

Keystone would have had a minimal effect on his pipeline business.

Buffet has pledged most of his $50 billion fortune to charity.

there ya go, again... bringing up those nasty little facts.

 

[Jarhead]

Romney lost because his principles weren't in the plan like obama, the street organ grinder, passing off free zhit with means of NEVER paying for it and blaming bush.

[...]

Romney lost because the voting public saw him for what he is, an elitist laissez-faire capitalist whose orientation and objectives are diametrically opposed to the interests of working class Americans. The fact that so many rightists have difficulty perceiving, understanding and/or accepting that simple and obvious reality occurs as a divisive malignancy in contemporary American politics.

I was a registered Republican dating back to the Goldwater era and I leaned toward Conservatism. In 2003, having watched the gradual degeneration of the Conservative Republican philosophy into what is best described as unprincipled, destructively militant and greedy corporatism, I re-registered as a Democrat. Briefly stated, there is little to no similarity between today's Conservative Republican philosophy and that which attended America's golden era, the decades between the 40s and the 80s.

Romney lost because he would have been good for the One Percent but bad for America.

You are full of shit. No one leaning conservative would have EVEr supported the policies of Obama as you do.

And only one of moderate and liberal thinking would have percieved Romney the way you described.

You are a liar and I am putting your lying ass on ignore. I do not interact with proven liars.

 

[Jarhead]

You guys do realize that Warren Buffet supports Obama because Obama enacts policies that make him more wealthy, right? You do realize that one of the reasons Obama wouldn't approve of the Keystone Pipeline was that Warren was going to make lots and lots of money off transporting oil that he would have lost if the Pipeline was approved? We aren't exactly talking about an altruistic man here.

Warren Buffet has been a liberal Democrat his whole life.

Keystone would have had a minimal effect on his pipeline business.

Buffet has pledged most of his $50 billion fortune to charity.

there ya go, again... bringing up those nasty little facts.

FYI...buffet admits that his fortune he is leaving will

1) Have absolutely no affect on his current lifestyle
2) Will still allow him to leave to his children money to afford them the same lifestyle he has enjoyed.

Whereas I do not have the same kind of money as Buffet, my will has plenty going to my children...and more going to charity.

The difference is...I did not go out and brag to the world how my entire fortune is going to charity and then admit otheriwse when pressured by the press.

 

[saveliberty]

...meanwhile...

Blue still has his job.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Under Obama, a Record Decline in Government Jobs - NYTimes.com

Obviously.

Nutters have their own facts.

Now you look like the ass you have looked like since the day you came on this site.

Pay attention to how this is done.

I made a hasty mistake in the above post. I did indeed equate federal jobs with government jobs. It appears that, while in no way obvious , the federal workforce grew
by a small amount during Obama's first three years.

Here's The TRUTH About The Growing Federal Workforce Under Obama - Business Insider

I apologize for my error.