G.O.P. Asks Businesses Which Rules to Rewrite

Discussion in 'Politics' started by sargon20, Jan 5, 2011.

  1. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    They don't even bother to disguise their agenda anymore. There is absolutely no political price to pay for turning government over to business. I wonder how much 'proof' was needed to prove regulations were restraining economic growth and job growth. Both were so fantastic under Bush and the Republican lead Congress.
    Last month a senior House Republican, Representative Darrell Issa of California, nevertheless dispatched letters to 150 companies, trade groups and research organizations asking them to identify federal regulations that are restraining economic recovery and job growth.

    G.O.P. Asks Businesses Which Rules to Rewrite
     
  2. JackWyatt76

    JackWyatt76 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2010
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    This is one of the most shameless displays of corruption I've seen so far. Suffice it to say, I'm forwarding this one around to my friends.

    There's a bright side to this, they're not even disguising what they're doing.
     
  3. maxcok

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2009
    Messages:
    7,392
    Likes Received:
    12
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Elsewhere
    I'll just say what I said over here:
     
  4. Speculator

    Speculator New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    Messages:
    375
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Kent, UK
    They're not doing it because they're corrupt, it's because they havn't got a clue so they're "asking the audience".

    It's called outsourcing, I thought the U.S public would recognise what that looked like by now.
     
  5. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    But regulations do inhibit job growth (note that this isn't the same as saying nothing should be regulated). Perfect example: a co-worker of mine has a sig. other that owns a small business. This small business has 3 employees, 4 including the owner. They have been needing to hire a new employee, but no longer can afford to due to the tax bill. My co-worker has been doing the accounting for the small business the last 5 years, for free because they are married, but due to new regulations brought on by the tax bill, they must now hire an outside accountant to do it. On top of that, they can no longer claim mileage used in work vehicles. Because of this, they cannot afford to hire another employee because they may not break even. One easy example of many
     
    #5 lucky8, Jan 6, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2011
  6. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^No, they can't afford another employee because they don't have enough business to warrant another one. All that has happened is your friend's business has not adjusted well to having a higher overhead. Labor costs did not just go up, other costs did. Also, productivity did not go up overnight, which means that demand still needs the same amount of labor to be met. If there was enough demand for their products, they would hire another person. They would have no choice.

    What you're failing to understand is that the same regulatory pressure that businessmen whine about, is the only thing that society can do to push their activities in a direction that is constructive for society, rather than being all about the self-entitled bastards running the companies. This country and mankind in general has already learned the hard way many times in history about what happens when businesses govern themselves.
     
  7. TomCat84

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2009
    Messages:
    3,497
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    32
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Diego, CA
    Gee, if only we could get rid of ALL regulations, then unemployment would be 0%! :rolleyes:
     
  8. B_talltpaguy

    B_talltpaguy New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,394
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    ^So I take it I'm not the only one that wonders if the people typing these remarks have issues with drool shorting out their keyboards?

    Yay!
     
  9. lucky8

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    17
    Gender:
    Male
    No, the demand is there which is why they need another employee (obvious), but now they can't hire one because the money that was previously allocated to hire this new employee must be devoted to an outside accountant. The only other option is to raise prices which would decrease demand, thus making it rather pointless as the decrease in demand would likely offset profits made from pricing premiums. And yes, they have another option besides hiring another employee; the guy works 18 hour days to fill in for the missing person.

    This new regulation is meant to catch loopholes that allow savvy business people to evade taxation (which I'm fine with), but should we really be sacrificing the little guy in an effort to pay for our government's decades of reckless spending? It's not about "pushing them in the right direction," it's about collecting as much tax money as possible, and you're flat out ignorant to think otherwise. Please, explain to me why a guy employing 3 people to make slot machines needs to be regulated and "pushed in the right direction." Furthermore, explain how making his tax accounting 10x more complicated will benefit him, his company, and society.

    You, like many others around here, seem to be blinded by your own political bias. What you fail to understand is that recent regulations intended to close loopholes for the big guys have actually hurt the little guys. Face it, your party is as paid for as the Republican party. I hope one day you will understand
     
  10. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis

    BINGO

    So now business can just wield “job creation” as a weapon, against anything they don’t like.

    “We have to stop polluting? Okay, then we won’t “create jobs.”

    “Pay taxes? Fine. No jobs.”

    “Produce safe products? Impossible! We’ll have to cut jobs!”

    Are the Tea Baggers happy now, that we’re in process of freeing them from the tyranny of inspected food?
     
  11. Mensch1351

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Messages:
    1,205
    Likes Received:
    24
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    In the only other State that begins with "K"!
    correct me if I'm wrong -- but don't these new regulations only apply to like small businesses who employ 25+ people or more???? There was no limit set on what defines a small business??
     
  12. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    I wonder what would happen if democrats had the balls to ask 'the left' as anyone that doesn't lick the boots of every pluotcrat or theocrat around did this what would happen?
     
  13. Dakota Kid

    Dakota Kid Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    343
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cavorting between fresh and salt water peninsulas.
    You don't need to ask "the left" when you just appoint them to head the EPA.

    There is certainly a need for some regulations. But when you go as overboard as this EPA is going, the over-regulated extreme can be just as bad as no regulations. We need to get politics out of the EPA and find a common sense approach to regulating business/industries. We are going to be feeling the pain of this current EPA mandate for a very long time :frown1:
     
  14. citr

    citr New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2009
    Messages:
    285
    Likes Received:
    0
    What's with all the bumped dead threads?

    The story about the guy who couldn't manage costs and grow correctly was pretty funny. Making excuses and blaming the government for why your business structure sucks: the hallmark of losers. I guarantee if we got the financials posted up and a quick little case history of the business written up, we'd some some very obvious mistakes made by the owner that explain why the biz couldn't grow correctly. (One of them possibly being that he got into the wrong industry to start with. I'm guessing he went with a low-margin product and tried to compete on price.)

    It's not pointed out often enough the sheer amount of political whining we hear from business owners associated with the right. Wah wah, some tax or regulatory change increased my overhead by X% and my margins are so stupidly razor-thin that I can't cover the new costs. Well gee, who the fuck ever told you to run such a risky business? Who told you to go into a saturated market and compete on price? Why didn't you build a fucking BRAND? Why weren't you prepared? Real entrepreneurs know that change means opportunity, even if it's only the opportunity of all your weak-tea competitors dropping out because they can't adapt.

    The Republicans are purportedly the party of self-responsibility, but your hear from an awful lot of Republican business owners that seem to think they deserve to stay in business. That if they go bust, it's not because of poor business decisions they made, but because of some external event.

    The story you'll never hear: I built a great product that fills a real need, I built a great brand that sustains higher margins than my competition, but wah wah, I'm going out of business and it's the government's fault!
     
    #14 citr, Dec 15, 2012
    Last edited: Dec 15, 2012
Draft saved Draft deleted