Helping Small Businesses Grow and Create New Jobs

[oliver18754]

@gary23902003

How is it racist if someone (let's say a white guy) votes for a black president, how will that be racist? It's like getting your best friend fired from a job.

[energyfinance]

@oliver18754

I used to think like you (at least as related to the first sentence) until it was explained to me in a different way.

For example, did you hear Obama say, "I'll go boy-girl boy-girl"?

By definition, that would be called being sexist!! Before you freak out, understand that he admited that he was going to make the SEX of the person asking a question, an issue. Three Ladies stand to ask questions, all eager. No man stands.... "Okay, I need a man now... any MAN with a question?"

[energyfinance]

@energyfinance

Do you think that some black people AND some white people voted for Obama BECAUSE he is black?

If your answer is 'yes' you now have the answer you're seeking about racism.

If you see him as a black man and that was the reason you coted for him, then, by definition you are a racist.

That you are a white man voting for a black man BECAUSE he is black... means that you have put race ahead of some other issue(s)...

hence the label.

[energyfinance]

@energyfinance

I used to play a game many years ago. I'll explain.

When someone, anyone, said that they voted for Obama I asked them a couple of questions.

1. What is the name of the Speaker of the House?

2. Who is Harry Reid?

3. What for of government is the United States of America?

Most people, nearly all, could not answer ANY of these questions, and, for example, if I cannot answer these questions AND I am sure that so and so should be president... it is likely that i am not interested.

[gary23902003]

Why stupid people shouldn't vote! If you voted for our current President in 2008 to prove you weren't a RACIST, please vote for someone else in 2012 to prove you're not an IDIOT!

[grantfaith]

the dude needs to do what he says, we elected a president that's a lair

[suldaanabdi]

we love obama

[elvismcneely]

Mr President, you mentioned fairtax and flattax as if they are the same. They are not. The fairtax is progressive, due to the prebate. Everyone pays the same rate minus the prebate everyone gets. Under the fairtax you have to spend more than $900k to pay the full rate. If a family of 3 spends $50k, they will pay 2% less than now. The poor will not pay any taxes AND they still reap the benefit of lower prices on goods due to embedded taxes being removed.

[elvismcneely]

One more thing, the underground economy (those who make money illegally) will now pay into the tax system, since they need basic neccessities. Although Warrent Buffet will pay the same tax rate as everyone else, he will pay more into the tax system, since he has more money to spend (fairtax is a consumption tax).

[energyfinance]

@elvismcneely

Making money illegally and the underground economy, though there CAN be overlap, are NOT the same thing.

Selling crack on the street is illegal. Moving furniture and not reporting that income to IRS is underground.

'Warrent Buffet' (aka Warren Buffett) will pay a tax on his salary NOT pay a tax based on the fact that he "has more money to spend".

[helltrackrider]

Mr Obama...You are a fucking moron.

A fucking third grader can understand the Constitution better than your inept ass.

That is all.

[bnjones28]

LOOK UP NEGROID IN METAPEDIA

[maskedphrogg]

@ilms98

Of course gov expenditure can affect GDP.

It is simply not measurable.

Gov does not produce.

There is no reasonable means to measure what is not produced by industry because resources were diverted to government expenditures.

This is not a philosophical argument. It's an argument directly related to property rights and honestly accounting for government takings. Government expenditure purchases a portion of GDP, it doesn't create a portion of GDP.

[maskedphrogg]

@ilms98

But if you prefer to make this an argument of philosophies

It is the difference between those who earn wealth directing that wealth and those who take wealth from those who have earned it and directing it in their own self interest irregardless of the interest of those who created the wealth.

[NoMercyJustCruelty]

November 2010 we Take Back America from the marxist swine. The best way to ensure prosperity is to never elect taxocrats in the firt place, unless they're running against zombie walruses.

[janichaz]

excellent!!! I am proud of you Barack! This is My President!!!

[worldofstrings]

mr. president ; don't pay attention 2 the negative press it comes along with being the president..say hi 2 the first lady 4 me...

[bnjones28]

He is talking about a tax break for small businesses of 35% of the additional cost to buy Obama care. Or about 35% on $28,000.00, or about a credit of $10,000.00, or I get to save the taxes on my gross pay minus the 10K or maybe $2,000.00 or $3,000.00. So it will only cost be $25,000.00 to cover all of my employees or just fire 3 employees and be able to pay bills.

If there are any Lib. CPA's out there Tell me if I have it wrong.

[bnjones28]

Gee see what a regular guy he is. Just another fun loving, great dad, great husband, an all around great Socialist. Prove me wrong. If you start asking about Med care and S. Security, your right. They are socialist programs. He has never even tried to listen to the people except when they are saying

MMM,MMM,MMM, Barack Hussein Obama, MMM,MMM,MMM,

[maskedphrogg]

@ilms98

"better take public finance class..."

Not if you want to learn economics.

If you merely want to fit in I suppose it's a logical next step.

However, if you desire the ability to arrive at rational conclusions and be able to reliably predict economic outcomes I heartily recommend against it.

Unless you are study at Mises University that is :-)

[maskedphrogg]

@ilms98

No, not a large part, all of it. Government creates nothing. Government taxes or borrows ALL that it spends. It is ALL redistribution of wealth.

On your other question. Your confusion is understandable. I did not state my case very well even for those whose first language is English. The point I intended to make is that those who earn wealth know best how they intend to dispose of that wealth. Any use of wealth other than one's own wealth is theft by definition.

[timefordifference]

Why doesnt he opt out of Nafta and our other failed trade agreements, revise them to protect the American worker and the environment like he mentioned during his campaign for office? Give tax breaks and create incentives for companies that manufacture products in the US and for companies that return to the US to manufacture products and hire American workers. This would create jobs in our country.

[timefordifference]

Instead He pursues amnesty for illegal immigrants and immigration reform that will erode the ability of the American people to obtain and maintain employment in the United States. Who does he truly represent? I have to admit he is a great speaker. He failed to give all the facts about healthcare reform. The tax credits are for businesses that have employees making less than $50,000.00 per year.

[maskedphrogg]

@ilms98

That is a contradiction in terms.

GDP -- Gross Domestic Product

Government produces nothing. Expenditures are not Products. At best you describe the scope of the problem. Government is redistributing wealth to the tune of a number comparable to 1/3 of GDP. Just think how much better off all of us would be if we could direct that kind of money flow in directions that actually benefited ourselves and not the favored partners of corporatist government lackeys. Some dare call that liberty.

[MichaelConrad1D]

President Obama as Investment Deficit Hawk.

I love it. More like this please.

[maskedphrogg]

@lowbottomranch

By continuing and magnifying the Bush Doctrine Obama has done nought but increase the pace and draw more lives into diminishing returns for effort expended.

How does this race to the bottom help any but those already at the top?

[groundhog2008]

Wow, we have an amazingly great president!!!! Some how, He seems to know exactly what to do to make America great again!! I liked Bills Clinton, but President Obama is even a greater president than he was!!!!

[travel1949]

LIES ALL LIES what a poor excuse for a HUMAN

[SuperTotoz]

what a bunch of nuts it took 8 years to destroy this economy and you want someone to fix it in 6 months

[maskedphrogg]

@SuperTotoz

Obama has been in office a week short of 17 months.

By what definition do you claim an economy where trade still takes place is destroyed?

[SuperTotoz]

@maskedphrogg didnt mean that literaly but i am also curious to see what would have happened to the financial system thus the economy if the gov hadnt stepped in to save the banks. oh and 17 months is enough to fix what again?

[maskedphrogg]

@SuperTotoz

17 mos is ample time to demonstrate a sincere effort to counter the ill effects of what can readily be demonstrated as harmful foreign and domestic policy. What has been shown by the last 17mos is that Obama has no intention whatsoever of changing the course of US government and it's illicit ties to big business and big banking.

Had the Congress not bailed out big banks, they would have suffered the losses they exposed themselves to. How could that be a bad thing?

[maskedphrogg]

@SuperTotoz

Do you mean anything you say or should I skip over your posts in the future as blatant trawling?

[SuperTotoz]

@maskedphrogg blatant trawling is people who constantly continue to critisize gov specificaly this adm for not growing the economy fast enough at the same breath say keep gov out of the private sector

[maskedphrogg]

@SuperTotoz

So why do attack me?

I give specific reasons for my arguments and back them up with examples from history or show logical outcomes.

Besides fantasy and magic what support do you offer for your stated view?

[skumrock]

Brown's a piece of shit

[Kakuzu09265]

i live right near buffalo :D

[BabybooR33]

lies deceptions spins manipulations frauds scams ...

[byrdman455]

Mr president you are a great guy but you can use some improvements you and nancy and reid should listen to the america people sometimes you are the reason that my family voted for the first in there lives my father was expected you to get the economy going that's all we just want are jobs and get us out of this recession

[maskedphrogg]

@byrdman455

Then why are you looking to government for solutions that only take place in the world of business?

Trade takes place between individuals or business firms. Jobs are created by entrepreneurs and businesses.

Looking to government to solve problems outside the domain of government is destructive of those systems naturally equipped to solve those problems. Government is a hammer, but not every problem is a nail.

[FreedomsReigning]

You've failed your controllers at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg Group Obama. This isn't a Marxist country. Your only chance is to call for our help.

Believing our government is ran by "fools" is the last refuge to hide from the truth. The federal government was bought up by the central banks, and is ran through councils of influence peddlers.

It doesn't matter who we vote for. The agenda is not set by Obama.

[JacksPliskin]

OMG ITS OBAMA OBAMAMAAMAMAM HES ON TV OMG DO YOU SE MASTA OBAMA> OBAMA ON TV OMG omg OMG.

[jagdishmamtadhody]

In the United States, some people give fruitcakes as gifts at Christmastime, but they are not called Christmas cakes.

Christmas Cake Recipe

[LeeRyan2930]

as much as i think Obama is not doing much to help small biz owners, it's still good. Bush wouldn't give a shit about this.

[jagdishmamtadhody]

Method:

1. Cream sugar and butter together till soft and light.

2. Add beaten eggs gradually.

3. Sift maida, nutmeg, cardamom, almon and baking powders together and add gently to butter mixture.

4. Add cleaned dry fruit slowly.

5. Add almonds, lemon peel and juice.

6. Line a cake tin 16 cms to 20 cms in diameter. Bake for 1 hour on high and then for 2 hours in a medium oven.

Serves 10.

[jagdishmamtadhody]

Awesome cuisine 3 cups Butter 5 eggs, beaten well 1 tsp Baking powder 2 cups Raisins 1 cup Glace cherries 1/3 cup Almonds, finely chopped 1 tsp Cardamom powder 2 cup Brown sugar 2 cups Maida 3 cups Currants 1 cup Mixed chopped candied peel 1/3 cup Almond powder 1 tsp Nutmeg powder Grated skin and juice of one lemon

[conspiracy777]

I'm amazed at the way people are still so mesmerized by this man.

"we are headed in the right direction"? REALLY?

More jobs, but unemployment went up. Want to talk about that?

I own a small business. NOTHING they are doing is helping me.

[EdgeNicx]

@conspiracy777 In their defence, they did predict this last month. They all were saying the rate would go up even as jobs were being created.

[conspiracy777]

@EdgeNicx That's not much of a defense. That's like a doctor saying, "we can save your leg but we knew we'd have to remove your head".

The uptick in jobs has more to do with the seasonal help that is hired EVERY year at this time.

I still have yet to hear how in the world ANYTHING they have done has created ONE private sector job. Like I said. I own a business and hiring an employee to get a tax cut is great IF YOU HAVE WORK FOR THEM TO DO!

It's bogus.

[joshuag5732]

@conspiracy777 Sure, I'll talk about that. It was explained pretty clearly on the news, (not Fox). There are more jobs available now such that more people are looking that had given up. That's why jobs were created and yet unemployment went up.

[joshuag5732]

@conspiracy777 It's going to take a lot of time for us to dig our way out of this and President Obama is trying to do everything he can think of to make it happen faster. Lowering taxes for the super wealthy will not work,Trickle down economics makes super billionaires I'll grant you but it also shrinks the middle class and produces bubbles in the market.

[MamtaRangoonDhody]

However a woman can have a taste for stale bread and sour cheese, just like men like peanuts.

[MamtaRangoonDhody]

A woman can be the most exquisite pastry you ever had with royal icing ,provided you have the taste buds for same ,and can overcome your habit of savoring peanuts.On duty a woman is the best soldier and not gender specific.Keep this in mind when doling out jobs.

[MamtaRangoonDhody]

How can u expect a tiger to change it stripes and become a zebra ?However both need a forest to survive !

[MsTommyknocker]

He's a charmer

[RebelRouserMC]

Barry Soetoro is a lying souless piece of shit! your due in court for treason today,may 14th 2010 ,9am !

[joshuag5732]

@RebelRouserMC God I love teabaggers. What's he on trial for?

[mariokluser]

It amazes me where he takes the energy from to work that hard. I really admire this.

[daderone]

I'm glad i voted for Obama. He speaks for me so much of the time.

[inappropriategiggle]

He impressive when he's unscripted.

[conspiracy777]

@inappropriategiggle You really believe he's not looking at a teleprompter?

[inappropriategiggle]

@conspiracy777

Hmm gee the part where he answers questions was teleprompted. Wow. That's some impressive s!#t.

[wannaruwae]

$ is predicted to collapse by 2010, this year, haha.

liar helps wall street gangs, not the people.

[maskedphrogg]

Liar.

If you had set back, quit distorting markets, then a real recovery not only becomes possible but takes vastly less time to come to fruition.

But no. You couldn't keep your fingers out of our pies. Now we will see this downward spiral continue for a decade or more instead of allowing the economy to recover in two or three years.

Way to squash the last hope of change coming out of Washington DC.

[EdgeNicx]

@maskedphrogg I don't know to whom you're speaking, but I assume you're talking about Keynesian economics. What is the (historical) proof that the President's Keynesian approach is ineffective?

[maskedphrogg]

@EdgeNicx

The depression of the 1920s. Better known as the depression that never occurred. Though conditions were worse, higher unemployment and greater inflation of money supply (which devalues dollars), a depression like that of the '30's never had a chance to get off the ground since gov kept it's fingers off the problem and private business was allowed to innovate and produce it's way out of trouble by creating value instead of stealing it and redistributing goods and services as gov does.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg The spending freeze in the 30's made the depression worse. No one had any money and the economy basically stopped. They were called Hoovertowns for a reason.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

haha, "the spending freeze"

Try again. The 1930's saw gov spending increase at a pace unparalleled by any previous period in US history. Had FDR kept his hands off the economy, as was done in the 1920's, then the Great Depression would have been over in a few years, as was the depression of 1921, instead of being stretched out over more than a dozen years with programs put in place that continue to do economic damage to this day.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg Sorry. FDR came AFTER Hoover when the damage was already done. (That sounds familiar) FDR's programs, along with spending during WWII is what brought us out of it.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

Keep on shilling for failed policy.

WWII did little to counter the effects of bad domestic policy. Even after sending 10s of thousands to Europe to fight in a war only the bankers wanted the unemployment rate remained frightfully high and remained so until technology innovations were allowed to flourish in the 50's. Unfortunately the repercussions of the Federal Reserve Act were already being felt and rampant inflation of the Money Supply was here to stay.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg Lot's of people liked the high unemployment, not just the banks. Big businesses that could pay people pennies for eighteen hour shifts. If you complained, you were gone and a hundred other guys took your place. Trickle down economics doesn't work. It just shrinks the middle class and causes bubbles in the market.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

Only in your dreams.

Obviously if it took a hundred sets of hands to replace your single set you were very much underpaid. Neither does the more reasonable proposition there would be as many as 100 waiting for you to screw up, get fired or quit have anything to do with Reagan style "trickle down economics."

Whether you like it or not by not punishing those who excel you will enhance your own environment. By not capriciously taxing employers out of existence jobs remain available.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg Sorry. Meant to say that a hundred people would be waiting to take your job if you were fired.

Taxes are not a punishment. Low taxes for millionaires does nothing for me no matter what the millionaires tell you. We had eight years of low taxes for the wealthy and the middle class shrank.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

I knew that, at least my reply wasn't so snide it shut down the conversation.

Perhaps punishment is too strong a word. I don't believe it is. Taxing authority can lead to punitive takings. I see no one promoting low rates for the rich. What I do see is ne'er do wells promoting punitive rates be put upon those of substantial wealth.

What does tax rates on the wealthy have to do with a shrinking middle class? We should quit punishing the middle class too eh?

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg Lower taxes on the wealthy means that there is less money for programs that help people overcome poverty. There's less spending on infrastructure as well which means fewer jobs and more roads, schools and bridges that are falling apart. The country needs to invest in green energy and get high speed internet hooked up for all. The trend for corporations when they have extra money is to invest in their own companies so they can make more money as opposed to hiring more workers.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

sure, cause it never takes more employees to make more product.

Idiot.

I wish my snide rebuttal earlier had shut down this thread now.

No you self serving fool. Investment in unprofitable ventures does not magically make them profitable any more than rewarding ppl for simply existing make those ppl productive. Work may not be a reward unto itself but it's a good starting place for earning wealth.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg I think we should invest in the development of green energy the way we invest in the military. The military doesn't produce anything, but it's essential for our national defense.

On a side note: Huge multi-million dollar corporations are more trouble than their worth. Most of the jobs they provide are going overseas now anyway. I really don't see why they should have lower taxes.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

So what?

You're wrong.

Gov investment in so called "green" energy (for the most part it is not amicable but destructive of natural environments though popular claims say otherwise) is an investment in particular private entities with the funds taken from individuals who would not otherwise make such investments. A morally repugnant notion that also takes investment capital away from projects that likely would resolve energy production needs. If green worked it would be profitable.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg I would not and did not want to invest in the Iraq war but we did it. Green energy isn't as destructive as say...4 million gallons of oil in the gulf coast and eleven dead oil rig operators.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

waaaaaa!

Cry on someone else's shoulder. Your guy Obama has done less than nothing with regard to wasting valuable resources in waging undeclared wars. But you partisan types consider hypocrisy a valued friend and not a shameful vice.

Regards the oil spill in the Gulf, I thought you fools wanted government regulation? This is the kind of incident that is the natural result of removing liability from private actors and settling it on government agencies. No one held responsible.

[maskedphrogg]

Not to mention your foolish suggestion that BP intended to dump 100's of thousands of gallons of raw crude into the sea rather than into tanker ships to be sold in global markets.

No, you will continue to believe BP wanted it to happen or doesn't care that it happened irregardless of the fact that BP will suffer the most from the incident.

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg I didn't suggest that BP dumped the oil on purpose. The only thing that BP cares about is the oil. When they finally get that geyser capped they'll clean up what they can get and leave the rest to soak into the ground. They'll dodge lawsuits fro the next 20 years or so from people whose lives and businesses have been ruined and then it will be business as usual.

[maskedphrogg]

@joshuag5732

It's already Business as usual. The kind of (monkey)business you have been promoting for days in just this thread. A regulatory regime under color of Law administered by an omnipotent government. Why are you so unhappy with the logical and inevitable results of getting what you wanted?

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg LOL. What regime? The oil companies do whatever they want. They cut corners. They faked tests. They went ahead with the pumping process when they failed the pressure tests. You wait and see if BP doesn't try and stick us with the bill. Their already pointing fingers at Haliburton and Transocean.

[classicrockforever5]

@joshuag5732 Why do they cut corners? Because they are only liable for 75 million in damages. It completely fucks up risk calculations. Remove government restrictions and the free market will handle this

[joshuag5732]

@maskedphrogg It's not like we could have left things the way they were in Iraq. I mean as soon as we leave the government will fall apart, but we had to at least try and salvage the situation.

The oil companies are not nor have they ever been regulated. Every agency that deals with them has been bought off. The liability remains with them. They're going to lose a lot of money for this disaster, but not enough so that they change their policies.  I am for regulation but REAL regulation.

[classicrockforever5]

@joshuag5732 Are you kidding me? The very regulation they were subjected to has created the problem. The fact that their liability for the incident is limited by federal law means that they are less likely to take necessary safety precautions.

[joshuag5732]

@classicrockforever5 The oil companies are nearly regulation free and the few rules that they do have they helped to write. This is a perfect example of what happens when an industry operates under its own free will. They will continue to lie to the American people whenever it suits them because they are too big to fail.

[jetrpg22]

@joshuag5732

Its odd i have not noticed anyoen point out how bp was not following regulation in regards to that well. They would be if they had any evidence they were , instead they point out track records. oh sure 1 year from now the blame will fall somewhere but it will be BS. The real issue was gov. said listen we are taking charge anbd you have to follow our rules, bp did pushed out a well in way to deep water and a fluke happened as they always will . And now the gov. say see what happens?

[joshuag5732]

@jetrpg22 They were using sea water instead of mud to pack the well in order to save ten million dollars. Every day there is more evidence that what they did was unsafe and violated the law. Eleven witnesses to that are now at the bottom of the ocean.

[classicrockforever5]

@joshuag5732 Too big to fail....you mean the government might regulate the market to save them? They aren't regulation free, they are under both positive and negative regulations. The whole too big to fail idea itself is nonsense, any business, big or small, with bad practices that bankrupt it ought to be allowed to die.

[joshuag5732]

@classicrockforever5 I think the government needs to regulate the market to save US. None of the oil companies have any idea how to stop these leaks and their clean up plans were developed in the sixties. No one cares as long as they pay royalties on the oil they drill.  We the people who are being hurt by this spill need to care. I can see the government bailing out BP. If BP goes out of business we end up paying for this disaster.

[EdgeNicx]

@maskedphrogg Why would anyone be a shill for a policy? For which client, and to what end?

[maskedphrogg]

@EdgeNicx

Got me, I'm not the one shilling for Marxist policy.

I'd like to see laissez faire given a fair shake in a broad variety of markets.

[asperin]

Nice title... But if you aren't deregulating and lowering taxes expect the complete opposite... Expect more companies taking their businesses abroad.

And helping business with tax money is an illusion, why take it in the first place?

I don't trust these guys.

[daderone]

@asperin deregulation is actually what got us in this mess. Encouraging the markets to foster stable economic recovery requires both regulations and incentives such as tax breaks, funding and assistance. Look at most countries who are trying to encourage development sucessfully, many actually realize that at times protecting their industry and investing in it is the key to success.

[conspiracy777]

@daderone It wasn't DEregulation is was improper regulation!

There is nothing wrong with capitalism, the real problem is corporatism. When big government gets in bed with big business, big labor, or big banking, there is a BIG problem. Right now they are in bed with all three!

[daderone]

@conspiracy777 improper regulation in the USA is often the result in those who seek deregulation as an agenda. The corporate interests all want extensive and continued deregulation and its gotten us no where besides in economic instability. There is nothing wrong with capitalism but lets not confuse capitalism with this brain dead right wing rhetoric in place of true economic theory. There is no invisible hand.

[conspiracy777]

@daderone I respectfully disagree. "... often the result in those who seek deregulation as an agenda." So those who PUT the regulation in place to begin with were the saviors? I don't believe that your statement contains any logic and certainly not an objective conclusion. Improper regulation is often WORSE than no regulation at all. The banking mess is a perfect example (Fanny n Freddy).

Big gov in bed with big biz, big labor, or big banking is a BIG problem. Regulation that favors bureaucrats

[daderone]

@conspiracy777 It is your right to disagree with opinion. Fact is though that conservatives traditionally support deregulation and as a result end up improperly regulating when in power. Thus the improper regulation is the effect of conservatives who don't believe in regulation in the first place. It serves their agenda as well to make these policies appear ineffective and thus useless and discardable.

[asperin]

@daderone

China and India are growing because of their deregulation.

The US has not been deregulating anything regarding economics.

And yes, the removal of Glass-Steagall Act is something that made things worse and a step I'm don't support you have to understand that the system of the Federal Reserve FRB is corrupt nonetheless.

[daderone]

@asperin did you really just compare the USA to China and India in order to make a point about economics? wow. I definately also think the Glass-Steagall removal was a bad choice. Actually under the previous administration there was significant deregulation and privatization.

[asperin]

@daderone

The US, China and India are affected by the same economic laws.

There was no deregulation for the market. The ones having no regulation were the already established monopoly corporations. I'm not in favor of regulating them, I'm in favor of taking away all the subsidies and bailouts they receive, that should solve it.

Direct regulation is a false choice. They get involved with the State and are able to work out deals, exchange favors.

[daderone]

@asperin well I'm also in favor of reducing corporate welfare however I disagree that all three countries are comparable as equivalent on an economic spectrum. Each country is unique and in comparative political economy there are vast differences for the positives and negatives of individual markets in the global economy. Hence what is good for China is not neccesarily good econ. policy for America. That seems common sense.

[daderone]

@daderone and I still have not heard what particular regulations you disagree with unless it is simply a conceptual matter for you and you reject the concept of regulation on its base. You seem to agree that regulation is neccessary to an extent yet what in specific you disapprove of I'm having a hard time figuring out.

[daderone]

not 2 mention that your statement about China & India having positive economic performance being the result of deregulation is highly generalized 2 the point of inaccuracy. Both countriescome from extreme cases of suffering a lack of econ. freedom, w/ tons of barriers 2 private enterprise. China & India r trying 2 deregulate 2b more like us but we as a highly developed & industrialized nation in USA have very few if any barriers that aren't bare min. & neccessary not barriers to overcome.

[daderone]

taking that perspective is when u end up removing neccessary protections instead of strengthening/enhancing existing code & reg. The result is implemented ineffective/nonexistent reg. Such is as volatile & dangerous as extreme protectionism as u have recognized w/ the existence of monopolies/consolidation. There is no invisible hand 2 econ, there is the goal 2 find equillibrium & + growth & that requires altering trade & reg. measures @ times 2 maintain a stable growing econ.

[asperin]

@daderone

All the countries are comparable when it comes to the global economy and its natural economic laws.

Supply and Demand do not vanish when you cross imaginary borders of a territory called China, or India, or US.

The point being. Deregulation allows for entrepreneurs to seek these places, where production is more cost efficient. There's nothing extraordinary about this.

_Continues_

[asperin]

@daderone

I reject regulation via a central agency with a monopoly of force, like the State, yet, regulation has increased in the US. Each day is harder to sell or produce. You need to pass through inspections, get permits, licenses, pay high taxes. It discourages production.

_Continues_

[asperin]

@daderone

The regulation I agree with is a fully democratic regulation where me, you, and everyone else in the planet vote with their money.

In the market, consumers decide the quality and the quantity of what is sold. Through their demand they influence the producer to satisfy them.

The entrepreneur follows these invisible orders for him to profit.

If we understood this there will be no need for artificial regulation that eventually,

_Continues_

[asperin]

@daderone

...If we understood this there will be no need for artificial regulation that eventually, as history has shown, been lobbied for, infiltrated and created monopolies, wars and poverty.

China and India will continue to deregulate, they know Capitalism raises the standard of living. You yourself have said that they are trying to imitate the US yet the US is doing away with the last remnants of freedom on it's economy and that is why we have seen companies take their businesses abroad.

[daderone]

@asperin actually the reverse has happend and we are in an era where the only ability to protect/defend and stablize economic sovereignty in a continuously globalized market is by democratic and constitutional regulation of goods. You seem to think of the US like China and its far from it in fact all deregulation will do is allow China to push out more domestic manufactuers and fund its own development by cheap labor.

[daderone]

@asperin well thats where ur wrong & not educated. Pol. econ. accounts 4 both your ability 2 act economically as well as democratically in a globalized market. u don't just get a vote w/ your dollar & I would want 2 live anywhere where the law of the land was determined by how much was in your pocket. If we took your advice millions of people would die from unsafe goods flooding our markets & nat. industry would probably shut down.

[daderone]

@asperin thats absolutely false. In fact every country has its own unique natural & national attributions that shape it. Each has different resources, locations, neighbors, populations/human capital, social priorities.

[daderone]

Your theory falls short when it does not account 4 these realities & whether or not having large amounts of for. investment is congruent w/ national priorities/interests. The priorities of for. firms is not always in the best interest of a nation, reg. allow the state 2 protect its nat. business interests, dev. & sovereignty. Remember where some of the 1st regulations came from in the USA.

[daderone]

I mean seriously...you really think the US is going to compete for cheap labor and goods with impoverished countries and China? You're either insane or not thinking...don't care about American interests, don't mind working for peanuts. America has always and will always have success around the world by producing in our nation quality products that are both safe and reliable. We create the good stuff, if you want to buy something crappy sure you'll pay less.

[daderone]

we also make our mark not in cheap labor but by technological competitive advantage and ensuring our ability to compete investing in education. I don't know about you but for some reason I care about American hegemony and sovereignty in the global 'free market' we created and exported. Maybe you just want to hand everything over. You want to give them our roads too? Think.

[asperin]

@daderone

No, the reverse has not happened. That is what the pro-establishment media and its Keynesian economists have been saying.

The "democratic regulation of goods" happens through Demand and Supply. A centralized agency is NOT democracy, it is authoritarian, the decisions are made by a few politicians influenced by big money.

It hasn't worked, stop trying already.

China will fund its development through cheap labor... And who will buy China's products?...

_Continues_

[asperin]

And BTW, I was not saying that the money you have determines escaping the law(although that happens all over the place), I was saying that when you spend money you are casting a vote. Consumers determine what is sold and what is not.

People will die due to unsafe products?

And what happens today if someone sells you an unsafe product? You don't buy it because you know is bad. How do you know that? You do a little research OR you see if it has been supervised by a regulatory company, like UL.

[asperin]

The FDA, who has failed repeatably, can be replaced by private regulators who can go bankrupt in case of inefficiency and be held accountable more easily.

Think outside the box for a little bit.

Centralization of power has only corrupted the economy.

Let the people decide.

[daderone]

@asperin the people do decide the government thru our electoral process which may be in need of reform as well. Power is held in all parts of government and is far from centralized in America. Institutions like the FDA are vital and should not be motivated or funded based upon private profits. We don't need someone trying to squeze an overhead of 10cents on every nickel to regulate saftey of goods.

[daderone]

@asperin and when you cast a vote you cast a vote and in a democracy that vote goes to form our representative government for and by the People. They are there as our voices on a local, state and national level and have the ability to and should look out for the best interests of their constituency. No company in anytown,USA benefits from not protecting our markets and citizens from poor quality goods or from cheap imports flooding markets. We are not a shopping mall.

[daderone]

@asperin you're obviously not taking the time to read & don't call me a fascist. You're not even making sense anymore. YOU sit here and promote a world where money and your invisible hand supply side econ. theories will just start raining lollipops & gold flakes, companies will do whats best just b/c. Without regulation there is consolidation & w/ consolidation there is a defecit 4 choice in a market, hence less competition.

[daderone]

@asperin I'm not a member of the media or adherent to some strict economic philosophy although I am a student of economics, political economy, political science and psychology.

You continue to spout this invisible hand rhetoric which is known economic fallacy. We will buy less of China's products if we have stricter regulations and meeting those will cost them more and allow domestic markets small, medium and large to survive and even better benefit.

[daderone]

and hypothetically in your dream world of privatization and dream deregulation, who is going to regulate the regulators if not the people electorally and finacially? Themselves...oh thats right the markets. yeah that sort of thinking has failed America miserably. I wonder what will keep these unregulated regulators from consolidating. You r inside the box bub.

[CapoBallin]

@daderone. I must have slept through this so-called "laissez faire America." There are many holes in your argument(s), much of them emotionally motivated rather than economically. You should read Marx's Capital. You seem to believe that a sufficiently large government will not exploit the population. Marx understood that exploitation is a primary function of government. No one ever promised a utopia through a true free-market system, but rather to provide the best chance for fairness abroad.

[daderone]

@CapoBallin i'm sure you've slept thru quite a lot. Please spare me the generalized rant on marxist philosophy. thanks.

[CapoBallin]

@daderone In the same token, please spare the rest of us your ignorant rant(s) then. Commenting on matters you clearly cannot comprehend nor have the acumen to debate. Thanks.

[asperin]

@daderone

"We don't need someone trying to squeeze an overhead of 10cents on every nickel to regulate safety of goods"

And you think the FDA is free?

Do you think is cost efficient?

The "invisible hand of the market" is a reality hence why things sell or don't.

[asperin]

@daderone

Prostitution and drugs sell because people just sell them or because there is demand?

The consumers, decide what sells and what doesn't. A basic law of economics that you deny.

Come on. On thing is disagreeing another is denying something so evident like Supply and Demand.

We never had true free market in America you are ignoring history, or lying about it.

Economic corruption arises from State intervention and participation.

Political power is purchasable.

[daderone]

simply put u have no real ability to comprehend modern political science, economics or sociology. Its sad but I have entertained your ignorance and idiocy for long enough. I wish I could pretend to care how wrong u r or that you don't seem to get it. I don't maybe someone else will spoon feed you the truth like they did the ideological rhetoric you so easily regurgitate.

[daderone]

@asperin you really have your head in your ass on economics and seriously I am not going to waste my time trying to pretend like someone who promotes the invisible hand fallacy is someone i can logic with. Its economics 101 and you fail horribly.

[asperin]

@daderone

You are the only one who has failed in Economics by ignoring its most important and evident law, Supply and Demand.

What can I say but keep repeating myself?

You just fear a free market because your Shitsrael wont be able to rob the US to fund itself.

More people are learning about the free market each day, we are converting them, waking them up.

[RichGriese]

I like that the president has a YouTube channel that I can subscribe to so that I can watch what he has to say. I may not watch everyone, but when the president speaks at length like this, I like that I can watch it, and comment like this.

[daderone]

@RichGriese me too, I really appreciate it and enjoy the opportunity. God Bless America

[AnthonyNews]

nice work president obama******

[sjk5000]

more shit talking

[lildwayne21]

@sjk5000 We'll elect you President and see how well you do.

[JacksPliskin]

@sjk5000 I suck him dry!!!!

[JacksPliskin]

@lildwayne21 I want to be president. I will even be on vacation longer then George Bush in my term and get paid too. As long as I don't have sex with anyone I won't get impeached.