U.S. Politics

Page 338 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Status
Not open for further replies.
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
And you said:



One doesn't have to look very hard to find the effects of ACA has had and is having on THE economic engine of the American economy.

You may be as hard headed as you like, but it is ok to admit when you are wrong.
And you're just assuming that it will have a negative effect because some other conservatives say it will, but mostly because your ideological blinkers don't allow you to think otherwise.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-03/business/38258603_1_health-care-law-small-business-majority-john-arensmeyer

The full economic impacts of the ACA won't be known for years and years yet, dude. Be patient.

As I've said from the beginning, the ACA will only make a bad system slightly less bad. There's no panacea for a system that's rotten to its core. If you were really concerned about costs to small business vis a vis health care, then one would think that you'd fully support detaching health care from employment altogether and replacing it with some form of government-run single-payer, as the rest of the world has realized is the best approach. But that conflicts with your ideology about "big government". Quite the conundrum you've got.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The irony of Bernie Marcus talking about someone else killing small business cannot be lost here. People like Mr. Marcus and Mr. Walton put more small businesses out of business than any entity in the history of mankind.
That is the problem right there. The Republicans are not pro business. They are pro big business. Most of the laws they decry were pushed for and even written by their big biz buddies. The complaints about how laws will hurt small business are just for show, much like the Republicans complaining about deficits whenever they are not the ones in power running them up. The vast majority of laws in this country are made to give one group a competitive advantage over another group that does not have as much political influence.

Unfortunately the Dems are not interested in seizing the opportunity to make themselves the party of small business. Doing something like breaking up a monopoly like Anheuser-Busch InBev would benefit the economy and create more opportunities for entrepreneurs and more choices for consumers. Ultimately, it would create more jobs.
 
Sep 10, 2009
5,663
0
0
BroDeal said:
Has Velo pushed to ban pressure cookers and sugar yet?
When it's gotten to the point that they're used to kill 70-80 people per day every day, let's chat.

btw just out of curiosity, should people be allowed to walk onto planes without undergoing security measures whatsoever? I have to assume that you do. Me, I have no problem with security measures in airports that help to minimize the chances of a plane being hijacked, just like I have no problem with additional gun control measures being instituted to minimize gun violence.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
The irony of Bernie Marcus talking about someone else killing small business cannot be lost here. People like Mr. Marcus and Mr. Walton put more small businesses out of business than any entity in the history of mankind.
Similarly, Henry Ford brought about devastation to buggy whip manufacturers across the globe.

How many people do Home Depot and Wal Mart employ?

Home Depot > 300,000

Wal Mart > 2,000,000
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Similarly, Henry Ford brought about devastation to buggy whip manufacturers across the globe.

How many people do Home Depot and Wal Mart employ?

Home Depot > 300,000

Wal Mart > 2,000,000
How many were employed by small business before Wally World took over? I'll place a bet that it was much greater than 2M.
 
Mar 18, 2009
14,634
0
0
VeloCity said:
btw just out of curiosity, should people be allowed to walk onto planes without undergoing security measures whatsoever? I have to assume that you do. Me, I have no problem with security measures in airports that help to minimize the chances of a plane being hijacked, just like I have no problem with additional gun control measures being instituted to minimize gun violence.
Your advocation for banning all guns has been well established, so don't attempt to play the reasonable law or a few additonal measures card.

Ban pressure cookers now and put Betty Crocker under surveillance.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
VeloCity said:
And you're just assuming that it will have a negative effect because some other conservatives say it will, but mostly because your ideological blinkers don't allow you to think otherwise.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-03/business/38258603_1_health-care-law-small-business-majority-john-arensmeyer

The full economic impacts of the ACA won't be known for years and years yet, dude. Be patient.

As I've said from the beginning, the ACA will only make a bad system slightly less bad. There's no panacea for a system that's rotten to its core. If you were really concerned about costs to small business vis a vis health care, then one would think that you'd fully support detaching health care from employment altogether and replacing it with some form of government-run single-payer, as the rest of the world has realized is the best approach. But that conflicts with your ideology about "big government". Quite the conundrum you've got.

And you're just assuming that it will have a negative effect because some other conservatives say it will, but mostly because your ideological blinkers don't allow you to think otherwise.
Will have? FFS, is having. As in right now. Today. Yesterday and tomorrow.

The full economic impacts of the ACA won't be known for years and years yet, dude. Be patient.
Gee Velo, I think the handwriting is already on the wall. It's already known and it's a huge drag on the economy. Open your eyes.

as the rest of the world has realized is the best approach
I'm thankful that the founders didn't place too much emphasis on what the rest of the world was doing in the very early days of forming this country.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
How many were employed by small business before Wally World took over? I'll place a bet that it was much greater than 2M.
Don't know but I'll bet it wasn't.

As an aside, consumers play the pivotal role here. If they wanted the local hardware store it would still be there.
 
Scott SoCal said:
How many people do Home Depot and Wal Mart employ?

Home Depot > 300,000

Wal Mart > 2,000,000
This argument is used to generate a kind of fear and somehow make low-wage jobs more important than they really are. If they weren't employed at these companies, they would still be working somewhere.

The political plan in the U.S. is to abandon the regulations that protect this economic class and support class mobility. Those jobs will be going away anyway.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
BroDeal said:
That is the problem right there. The Republicans are not pro business. They are pro big business. Most of the laws they decry were pushed for and even written by their big biz buddies. The complaints about how laws will hurt small business are just for show, much like the Republicans complaining about deficits whenever they are not the ones in power running them up. The vast majority of laws in this country are made to give one group a competitive advantage over another group that does not have as much political influence.

Unfortunately the Dems are not interested in seizing the opportunity to make themselves the party of small business. Doing something like breaking up a monopoly like Anheuser-Busch InBev would benefit the economy and create more opportunities for entrepreneurs and more choices for consumers. Ultimately, it would create more jobs.
The Republicans are not pro business. They are pro big business.
I think this applies to both parties.

The complaints about how laws will hurt small business are just for show,
This is largely true. Big business loves and hates the regulatory environment. Regulations hurt their bottom line but eliminate smaller competitors.

The vast majority of laws in this country are made to give one group a competitive advantage over another group that does not have as much political influence.
Absolutely.

Unfortunately the Dems are not interested in seizing the opportunity to make themselves the party of small business. Doing something like breaking up a monopoly like Anheuser-Busch InBev would benefit the economy and create more opportunities for entrepreneurs and more choices for consumers. Ultimately, it would create more jobs
Agree in principal, but I'd rather see JP Morgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells and Goldman Sachs broke up. If InBev fails no one cares except the Bud Light guy. If the "too big to fail" banks crash (again) that's a whole different situation.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
DirtyWorks said:
This argument is used to generate a kind of fear and somehow make low-wage jobs more important than they really are. If they weren't employed at these companies, they would still be working somewhere.

The political plan in the U.S. is to abandon the regulations that protect this economic class and support class mobility. Those jobs will be going away anyway.
Probably true with Home Depot. But Wal Mart is generally acknowledged to widely employ the unemployable, so I'd guess a big portion of the wal mart workers would likely not be working somewhere else.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Similarly, Henry Ford brought about devastation to buggy whip manufacturers across the globe.

How many people do Home Depot and Wal Mart employ?

Home Depot > 300,000

Wal Mart > 2,000,000
Your post does not alter the truth of mine. The fact remains that those two companies wiped out small businesses like no other companies or governments in history...and none of them were buggy whip purveyors...

Note too the vision of the American Dream your post shows: Minimum wage jobs where the employer calculates that their workers will have to subsist on government assistance. Please tell me you see the folly of your post.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
BroDeal said:
That is the problem right there. The Republicans are not pro business. They are pro big business. Most of the laws they decry were pushed for and even written by their big biz buddies. The complaints about how laws will hurt small business are just for show, much like the Republicans complaining about deficits whenever they are not the ones in power running them up. The vast majority of laws in this country are made to give one group a competitive advantage over another group that does not have as much political influence.

Unfortunately the Dems are not interested in seizing the opportunity to make themselves the party of small business. Doing something like breaking up a monopoly like Anheuser-Busch InBev would benefit the economy and create more opportunities for entrepreneurs and more choices for consumers. Ultimately, it would create more jobs.
This I agree with completely...the rest too, but that is a legitimate critique of the politicians I vote for.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
Your post does not alter the truth of mine. The fact remains that those two companies wiped out small businesses like no other companies or governments in history...and none of them were buggy whip purveyors...

Note too the vision of the American Dream your post shows: Minimum wage jobs where the employer calculates that their workers will have to subsist on government assistance. Please tell me you see the folly of your post.
How so? What role does the consumer play here? These companies prevail because the consumer buys what they sell at a price point that works for the buyer and the seller.

You think Home Depot employees are minimum wage earners?

The fact that these companies put others out of business because of a more effective model has been going on as long as there has been free(ish) markets. I don't have very many options for local farmers markets (unlike almost everywhere in Europe) because of large supermarket chains. I guess we have to include them as job/business killers too.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
How so? What role does the consumer play here? These companies prevail because the consumer buys what they sell at a price point that works for the buyer and the seller.

You think Home Depot employees are minimum wage earners?

The fact that these companies put others out of business because of a more effective model has been going on as long as there has been free(ish) markets. I don't have very many options for local farmers markets (unlike almost everywhere in Europe) because of large supermarket chains. I guess we have to include them as job/business killers too.
What role does the business that manipulates suppliers and local governments to the exclusion of small business play?

And again, the fact that the co-founder of Home Depot is pontificating about the loss of small business is ironic.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
What role does the business that manipulates suppliers and local governments to the exclusion of small business play?

And again, the fact that the co-founder of Home Depot is pontificating about the loss of small business is ironic.
Manipulate? You mean ask suppliers for a better deal if they buy in scale? Ask local governments for tax incentives if they build in their town and bring the jobs that go along with it?

Both governments and suppliers can say "no thanks." I wonder why most don't?

And does the consumer benefit because the consumer sure thinks he or she does.

Again, I'll point to supermarkets as the model being followed.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Manipulate? You mean ask suppliers for a better deal if they buy in scale? Ask local governments for tax incentives if they build in their town and bring the jobs that go along with it?

Both governments and suppliers can say "no thanks." I wonder why most don't?

And does the consumer benefit because the consumer sure thinks he or she does.

Again, I'll point to supermarkets as the model being followed.
You lost me at "ask." You are obviously unfamiliar with their business practices.

They have taken away freedom from millions of people. Sure you can buy cheap Chinese made sh!t there, but consumerism is not "freedom" contrary to Republican propaganda. If Walmart capitalism is your shining star of capitalism, capitalism will fail.
 
Nov 8, 2012
12,104
0
0
ChewbaccaD said:
You lost me at "ask." You are obviously unfamiliar with their business practices.

They have taken away freedom from millions of people. Sure you can buy cheap Chinese made sh!t there, but consumerism is not "freedom" contrary to Republican propaganda. If Walmart capitalism is your shining star of capitalism, capitalism will fail.
Respectfully, I think I grasp their business practices better than you (think).

If Walmart capitalism is your shining star of capitalism, capitalism will fail.
Hmmm. I've not argued that. But you better hope you are wrong.
 
May 27, 2012
6,458
0
0
Scott SoCal said:
Respectfully, I think I grasp their business practices better than you (think).



Hmmm. I've not argued that. But you better hope you are wrong.
Respectfully, if you think they ask, you are either characterizing it in a completely deceitful manner, or you really don't grasp it. They don't ask anyone anything.

On the contrary, if that is who we are going to continue to evolve into, I hope I'm right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
MarieDGarzai Non-Cycling Discussions 2
Similar threads
The Politics of Sport

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS