The President Made You!

[aka Hunter]

The original point was Obama claiming that the government has helped all those small businesses succeed....

The bottom line is everyone get's help along the way but without putting the time and money into my business it wouldn't exist.

I can probably agree with those points.

BTW, what sort of business do you have?

 

[PJGunner]

Methinks Obama is back on the wacky weed again. The reason jobs are going overseas and business is failing is because government is regulating it to death. There isn't a regulation those bureaucrats don't love.
Yes, the government does create jobs. More government jobs to be exact. The U.S. Government is the largest employer in the U.S. :shock: Guess I should be guilty as I did work for the Post Office for about 2.5 years, then finally hired on with what was then called the Weather Bureau. Shortly thereafter they renamed it the National Weather Service and cut back on a bunch of services. It was a good job for ilitary people who had been trained in weather to get a job after leaving the service but about 10 years ago, they decided that was no good and started hiring kids fresh out of college with degrees. More than once I conflicted with those guys and came out right every time. Maybe I didn't have a degree but I had years of experience in the areas where I worked. I knew how the weather patterns affected my area my forecasts were about 98 percent correct, my warnings spot on, that is to say they verified.
I used to joke about my job. Someone would ask whay I did for a living and I'd say, "I'm a weatherman. You know, a paid liar." That pretty much shot down any wise cracks they might of come up with. :lol: I really loved what I as doing and to this day resent the crap I had to put up with from 20 somethings that considered me stupid because I didn't have that piece of paper.
I always called it discrimination by degree.
Oh well, I'm out of it now, been retired for ten years and loving every minute of it. I put in 33 years as a weatherman and I wouldn't have it any other way. I felt I was doing something worth while, and possibly may have saved a life of two with my forecasts and warnings. I guess my point is, not all federal workers are bad guys. based on just my experience with the Post Office and NWS, we're hamstrung by a lot of regulations.
I'll give one example. I pit out a forecast that carried a chance of moutain thunderstorms with potential flash flooding. The lead forecast who puts out the guidance for what I forecast caalls on the phone and says, "It ain't gonna happen." He orders me to remove it. I tell him, "That ain't gonna happen." When my relief comes in and I can go home, I tell him what I have and that Phoenix ordered me to change it, but I didn't. Well, five minutes after I'm gone Phoenix calls and tells him to take the storms and flooding out. Like good little yes man who never questions authority, he does it. At 2 PM MST, there was a storm, a canyon flash flooded and two hikers were killed. There was a real donnybrook over that one as even the Regional Director came to Tucson to hold an inquiry. Believe it or not, I was actually chewed out by the RD for not taking the storm and flood stuff out of my forecast. I got news for you all. Working for the government is no piece of cake. I finally had enough time in and was old enough I could take an early out without getting hurt too bad. I do wish I could have stayed in for another five years as the retirement pay would have been substantially higher but between working rotating shift work and the hassles with the "degreed" kids, well I think you get the point. My health has improved a whole lot since I pulled the plug. I really did not notice the toll shift work and staying on top of what working severe weather had done.
I din't mean this to be some kind of sob story. Just a statement of fact on what it's like to work for Uncle Sam. It's no different than the military. You don't take vacation, you take annual leave. Be late to work or a no show and you're AWOL. Get the picture?
Paul B.

 

[Guest]

Using logic, we can deduce this entire statement to be of fabrication. If it is not the determination, ingenuity, innovation, effort, and investment of the business person (the one with the idea who sees opportunity), but instead is the existence of all these other things - infrastructure, good teachers, government programs, free education, and the like - we should have an immense class of successful business people, few business failures, and even fewer unsuccessful people. And yet, just the opposite is true. The numbers are in fact staggering as to the number of business failures annually. So, by sheer logic, it cannot be true that "someone else did that" for successful people, as successful people are fewer than unsuccessful people in the business world. The reality is, the roads exist as a by product of successful people, not as a precursor to them. Good teachers exist, and I am not discounting their worth, but if they are the cause, then again, a higher percentage of people should be successful in the business community, and that's not the case. And, this entire line of reasoning discounts any negative impacts of the bad teachers, bad role models, bureaucratic red tape and obstacles, high rate of taxation, and regulatory impediment, conveniently.

The bottom line is, the difference between a successful business person and others is usually a willingness to do more, with less, creatively, in order to fulfill a vision or dream that has been given plans in order to become a goal. That, and the continuance of getting back up when the person gets knocked down.

As for this statement:

Yes, had government restrained itself, adhering to the Constitution, the nation would be stronger and the economy much healthier.

Have you entered into "the realm of speculation"?

The realm he's entered into is that of the preponderance of historical record throughout recorded time. Empirical thought, based on careful observation and study of actual evidence. You should understand that.

And with regard to government creating jobs, consider that for every government job to be funded takes approximately 3-5 equivalent private sector jobs based on the rate of taxation and considering equivalent salary and benefits. In the absence of private sector job growth to fund government job growth, we have structural deficits, which cause economic contraction, which reduces the number of private sector jobs. Hmmm...seems that perhaps the government doesn't create anything...it only redistributes it, after taking a sizable cut in "overhead" regardless of whether we're talking money, jobs, or anything else.

 

[aka Hunter]

As for this statement:

Yes, had government restrained itself, adhering to the Constitution, the nation would be stronger and the economy much healthier.

Have you entered into "the realm of speculation"?

The realm he's entered into is that of the preponderance of historical record throughout recorded time. Empirical thought, based on careful observation and study of actual evidence. You should understand that.

And with regard to government creating jobs, ... seems that perhaps the government doesn't create anything...it only redistributes it, after taking a sizable cut in "overhead" regardless of whether we're talking money, jobs, or anything else.

I don't consider myself a history expert, and I haven't read the "preponderance of historical record throughout recorded time," so help me out. When did the gov't act outside the constraints of the constitution? Also, to what examples of lack of restraint (regardless of whether contrary to the constitution) are you referring? Let me guess at three:

1. The level of gov't debt? I don't know that less borrowing over the years would equal a stronger nation and a much healthier economy. I suspect a lot of the prosperity enjoyed by this country is because of gov't borrowing. Will the ultimate repayment of, or default on, that debt be as painful as if the debt had not been created? I don't know.

2. The housing meltdown, and the bank and automobile bail-outs? I don't know that tighter lending standards and a refusal to bail out the banks and car companies would have resulted in a stronger nation and a much healthier economy. Yes, a lot of money was redistributed as a result of those messes; however, maybe the redistributed money resulted in a near-zero-sum effect on the national economy -- I don't know.

3. Welfare-assistance excess? I don't doubt that there's a lot of cheating-the-system; however, is that a reflection of "lack of restraint" on the part of gov't? Has the gov't created too much incentive to not work? In some cases, maybe -- but, since "the devil is in the details," maybe it's the administration of those details that's the problem. Had the various programs not been in place, I suspect the fall-out would not have been pretty.

As for whether the gov't creates anything v. only redistributes, the gov't creates via redistribution. I'm not arguing the efficiency of specific gov't actions; I'm just arguing that gov't involvement in our business affairs, overall, is (and has been) helpful to business. Take away all gov't involvement and I can't imagine what life (or business) would be like.

 

[Guest]

With regard to the preponderance of historical record, I'm referring to the negative impact on job creation in the private sector during times of unrestrained governmental behavior, as governmental behavior primarily takes the form of regulation, taxation, and bureaucracy. As for extra-Constitutional behavior, I personally believe that better than half the now nearly $4 Trillion federal budget is in areas that are outside the framework of our Constitution. Highly liberal, activist courts have pushed the edges of the "limited" powers of government back to the point where there are few if any limits on federal power. If you haven't read the federalist and anti-federalist papers, you certainly should, but the federal form of government we adopted in 1787 and ratified in 1788 was one with a fervent belief that centralized power should be highly limited. I can't imagine how the various idiots on the SCOTUS have misinterpreted the 10th Amendment so frequently and so insanely.

As for our current business climate, I can safely say that our current president is well outside his Constitutional authorities, for sure. Rewriting regulations outside prescribed law is unconstitutional, for certain. And those things have a highly negative impact on business.

 

[Oldtrader3]

The audacity or the audacious!

I agree with most of what he said; however, I don't fully agree with "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen"; I would change it to read, "If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that on your own. Somebody else helped make that happen."

When I hear folks talk about being a "self-made" man, I think they're not thinking very deeply.

Hunter, I have something for you Bud, open wide and smile!

 

[Oldtrader3]

Hunter, wake up! Every job that Barry has created has cost an average of $1.2 million each. He could have written the people digging holes and filling them (the latest US job scheme) a check for $500,000 and saved money! You call this efficient creation of jobs? However, I guess that you would, knowing what a Democratic Liberal tool you are!

 

[aka Hunter]

Hunter, wake up!

Hey, OT3 -- thanks for waking me; hope you're having a nice day out there on the left coast. :grin:

 

[FOTIS]

Loser... Nuff said!

 

[big rifle man]

right on the money fotis although I can think of a few other choice words.

 

[aka Hunter]

Anyone still think the gov't doesn't help business?

http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation- ... 84987.html

http://www.ajc.com/news/transportation- ... 83438.html

 

[Guest]

Anyone realize that the government doesn't have any funds of any kind before they take it from business, either directly or indirectly? Government doesn't do anything without business, just like a business doesn't do anything without its customers. Your clients ultimately pay your income tax, as do mine, Hunter.

 

[aka Hunter]

Anyone realize that the government doesn't have any funds of any kind before they take it from business, either directly or indirectly?

W, I don't disagree with your statement (however, I know you wouldn't mind me adding that "they take it from individuals also"); in fact, that's the very basis of my argument that gov't helps business. The social engineering function of gov't has helped most businesses.

 

[Guest]

But, Hunter, where do individuals get their funds? From businesses. Thus the indirectly comment above. Not one person I know gets a paycheck, trust fund distribution, or inheritance that didn't come from a business at some point. And government doesn't get any of it until after businesses create it. That's the thing you and others fail to realize. Businesses actually create wealth. All the government BS is there whether it not someone decides to start their business. It's the business owner who risks that creates wealth, which of course the government then takes an ever increasing cut of. To believe otherwise is to still live in the land of the tooth fairy. Nothing comes from government. Government cannot create. It can only take away.

 

[Oldtrader3]

When I was a Business Development Director for a large Medical Device Corporate Division, every politician that I ever saw cross our Corporate threshold had his/her hand out for money. We asked the senior Senator from one particular state where we had a plant for help on a Congressional Senate Bill which affected our business with the FDA.

We were told that a $300,000 donation was the cost of getting this official to sit down and listen to us, with no promises in return. Our Division President sent the Senator packing as a poor investment risk! As it turned out the Senator would not have helped us anyhow because of a personal business agenda in conflict with the handout request from us.

Tell me again Hunter, that business can not succeed without being coddled by government! That is patent nonsense! Plus I truly believe that you know that is not true and are just baiting the fish for your own personal amusement?

 

[aka Hunter]

And government doesn't get any of it until after businesses create it. That's the thing you and others fail to realize.

W, my argument that gov't helps business does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I don't understand that "government doesn't get any of it until after businesses create it." My argument is that gov't helps business by making available money/resources for research and development, and for consumers; that it does that via borrowing, printing, and taxes doesn't change the fact that such money/resources helps business.

When I was a Business Development Director for a large Medical Device Corporate Division,

...

Tell me again Hunter, that business can not succeed without being coddled by government!

OT3, I suspect most businesses associated with the medical field have benefited from gov't funded research, from Medicare and Medicaid (which allowed many folks to buy services they otherwise would not have been able to buy), and from gov't subsidized transportation. As above, the fact that those funds represent redistributed funds doesn't change the fact that those funds are/were made available to those businesses via gov't intervention.

 

[Oldtrader3]

When I was a Business Development Director for a large Medical Device Corporate Division,

...

Tell me again Hunter, that business can not succeed without being coddled by government!

OT3, I suspect most businesses associated with the medical field have benefited from gov't funded research, from Medicare and Medicaid (which allowed many folks to buy services they otherwise would not have been able to buy), and from gov't subsidized transportation. As above, the fact that those funds represent redistributed funds doesn't change the fact that those funds are/were made available to those businesses via gov't intervention.

Actually, no Government agency, except some smaller CDC efforts, like AIDs, does any basic research anymore and has not done so since at least 1990. Medicaid and Medicare have never invested any money for research which I am aware of. Companies like the one which worked for spent $ ten of millions in Basic Research every year with none of it paid for by federal goverment tax monies. The goverment funded some small Orphan drug and vaccine research back in the 1990's but has not done any of that nor any taxpayer funded research in the last 20 years which I am aware of. All research for medicine is done with capital spending invesment from earnings. DrMike was a researcher and will tell you the same thing.

There was an investment tax credit for new medical and ethical drug product development from the Government which was only a abatement of a portion (10%) of income taxes on new medical, ethical drugs and devices for 3 years but the Government cancelled that program as soon as Obama was elected. Also, Puerto Rican drug manufacturers were tax emempt for all taxes (except 10% income tax) until 1995 (Tax Code 925) and that was phased out in the late 1990's.

Goverment does give Pell Grants (small ones to $50 K) to some scientific research but they are small and typically last only one year and they are mostly for the physical sciences to study bee behavior or some other such esoteria, not medical research. The Salk Polio vaccine program was partially government funded but that was done and finished in the 1950's!

 

[338winmag]

Most of us are now in our 50's, 60's and 70's and maybe 80's. We all have seen term after term after term after term.

Seriously folks, and I mean seriously.
You can't see the depth of the evil and the depth of corruption, lies, deceipt, and domination? :?:

A quote from Forest gump: "..and thats all I have to say about that." :wink:

 

[aka Hunter]

Medicaid and Medicare have never invested any money for research which I am aware of....The goverment funded some small Orphan drug and vaccine research back in the 1990's but has not done any of that nor any taxpayer funded research in the last 20 years which I am aware of. All research for medicine is done with capital spending invesment from earnings.

...

Goverment does give Pell Grants...to some scientific research but they are small and typically last only one year and they are mostly for the physical sciences to study bee behavior or some other such esoteria, not medical research.

1. I didn't suggest that Medicare and Medicaid "invested any money for research"; I said they "allowed many folks to buy [medical] services they otherwise would not have been able to buy" -- you don't think that helped medical-related businesses?

2. Where does the National Institutes of Health fit into your statements that there has not been "any taxpayer funded research in the last 20 years," and that "[a]ll research for medicine is done with capital spending invesment from earnings"?

3. That medical device business for which you worked, did it use gov't subsized transportation? Did it sell its products to gov't subsized institutions? Did it sell its products to doctors who used those products to treat Medicare or Medicaid patients?

 

[Guest]

And government doesn't get any of it until after businesses create it. That's the thing you and others fail to realize.

W, my argument that gov't helps business does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that I don't understand that "government doesn't get any of it until after businesses create it." My argument is that gov't helps business by making available money/resources for research and development, and for consumers; that it does that via borrowing, printing, and taxes doesn't change the fact that such money/resources helps business.

I posit that government does not have a positive net impact on business. If you consider the whole effect of government on business, it is by far negative. I understand that basic regulation must be in place to maintain order, but the reality is, almost all of the regulatory environment now in place is orders of magnitude beyond that basic structure requirement. Those onerous regulations, coupled with the inherent inefficiency of government. It takes $3 in taxes to provide $1 in government benefit (33% efficiency rate) versus private funds (charities, endowments, etc.) which are rated as poor if they do not keep a 90+% efficiency rate (taking in $1 to provide $.90 or more in usable benefit). The impact of government can be readily seen in the stifling of the economy whenever it grows. Why did Reagan have a booming economy? Because, despite spending increases overall, the spending was centered in defense (which had been woefully underfunded by Carter and was in need of significant re-equipping and refurbishing, as well as revamping the pay structure) and on the domestic side, Reagan unshackled businesses and individuals by reducing the tax burden and reducing the regulatory burden significantly. Why did Clinton have a booming economy? For much of the very same reason - his republican congress slashed the regulatory burden on businesses and created an environment of growth. Contrast that with Nixon/Ford (increased regulation), Carter (increased regulation even further), and Obama (a regulatory wet dream) and you get what is predictable - government causing a prolonged economic contraction through unnatural and inconsistent influences on the market by onerous regulations.

Government cannot create, even by redistribution. Government can only destroy. The net result of government is always a loss. Even in basic, necessary functions like keeping the peace and providing for defense, the inefficiency of government creates a loss, but it is one which the public is willing to abide, to an extent. Remember the $50 hammer issue? The $400 toilet seat? $1.2 Million per job created (could have just written a check for half that, and saved a ton of money for the taxpayers, and made someone instantly fiscally alright for a decade...)?