Corporation vs Government: Who Do You Trust?

[Bern80]

You have been answered directly time and again with examples, etc., Bern80. You accuse others of doing what you just did.

You are unable to defend unregulated capitalism: we all understand that.

So it is your position that my position is markets should be completely unregulated by governments, yes?

Don't put words in my mouth, little Bern. But if you want to play: what regulations of business would you think is acceptable?

Actually I'm trying to figure out what words you are trying to put in my mouth. Let's see, I'm an evil, immoral person but you can't articulate what my horrible belief is that makes me such an evil immoral person. Interesting.

A government regulation that I would be okay with? How about accessibility to the handicapped.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your beliefs have been articulated fully here for all to see and you have been unable to defend your position.

Now to the question: what regulation do you believe in necessary? Do you believe regulations should have been in effect for the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory Fire of 1911? A refusal to answer will be considered a silent affirmation that regulations should have been in place.

 

[American Horse]

Your beliefs have been articulated fully here for all to see and you have been unable to defend your position.

Now to the question: what regulation do you believe in necessary? Do you believe regulations should have been in effect for the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory Fire of 1911? A refusal to answer will be considered a silent affirmation that regulations should have been in place.

I suppose you mean "what regulation do you believe is necessary?" Regulations based on public safety, like fire regulations are absolutely necessary. These are regulations enforced by state fire marshals and are imbedded in building codes and thus required by construction permits (another regulatory necessity) for such safety items such as fire extinquishers on site, fire sprinklers, safe exits, exit signs, firewalls, and more.

No one would argue about these and many many many more. But requiring any person doing business to file a 1099 form on the basis of any or cumulative purchases exceeding $600 is an example of a bad regulation, and will dampen decisions for both those considering starting a business, and/or those who might just as well do business with fewer business entities to reduce their paperwork load. A trucker will drive by the small independent fueling station to go to the large Exxon station that might send him the paperwork at the end of the tax year, verifiably accurate.

To those who think a 1099 for is a minor detail, consider that to file one you need to keep acccurate (to the penny) all payments to that entity, know their federal ID number if they are a corporation or their SS# if they are an individual doing business as a sole-proprietor, have a proper mailing address of that business.

The old regulation required only that 1099's be filed with sub-contractors doing business by providing services, and did not require filing on corporations since as state chartered entities they are required to be audited annually, therefore they were exempt from 1099 filings. The new regulation requires that virtually any entity paid more than the threshold $600 be filed on and a copy be sent to them.

The Republicans propose that all new regulations be evaluated as to cost to their cost to the economy, and that any new regulation with a cost exceeding $100-million will in the future require direct congressional approval.

 

[Bern80]

Your beliefs have been articulated fully here for all to see and you have been unable to defend your position.

Here's what your doing weasel. You are trying to win an argument by not having to make one yourself. You can't really claim someone's position is wrong and not know their position in the first place. You can't really claim I am wrong about anything because you can't answer the question concerning what my position is. You couldn't answer even a simple yes or not question.

Now to the question: what regulation do you believe in necessary? Do you believe regulations should have been in effect for the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory Fire of 1911? A refusal to answer will be considered a silent affirmation that regulations should have been in place.

I don't really know enough about the incident to say one way or the other. I gave one general answer above however. I'm sure there are a few other regulations here and there I wouldn't have a problem with. Laws against blatant false advertising. I don't think OSHA is bad in principle, though being government run they are a bit of a bearucratic nightmare.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Your beliefs have been articulated fully here for all to see and you have been unable to defend your position.

Now to the question: what regulation do you believe in necessary? Do you believe regulations should have been in effect for the Shirtwaist Triangle Factory Fire of 1911? A refusal to answer will be considered a silent affirmation that regulations should have been in place.

I suppose you mean "what regulation do you believe is necessary?" Regulations based on public safety, like fire regulations are absolutely necessary. These are regulations enforced by state fire marshals and are imbedded in building codes and thus required by construction permits (another regulatory necessity) for such safety items such as fire extinquishers on site, fire sprinklers, safe exits, exit signs, firewalls, and more.

No one would argue about these and many many many more. But requiring any person doing business to file a 1099 form on the basis of any or cumulative purchases exceeding $600 is an example of a bad regulation, and will dampen decisions for both those considering starting a business, and/or those who might just as well do business with fewer business entities to reduce their paperwork load. A trucker will drive by the small independent fueling station to go to the large Exxon station that might send him the paperwork at the end of the tax year, verifiably accurate.

To those who think a 1099 for is a minor detail, consider that to file one you need to keep acccurate (to the penny) all payments to that entity, know their federal ID number if they are a corporation or their SS# if they are an individual doing business as a sole-proprietor, have a proper mailing address of that business.

The old regulation required only that 1099's be filed with sub-contractors doing business by providing services, and did not require filing on corporations since as state chartered entities they are required to be audited annually, therefore they were exempt from 1099 filings. The new regulation requires that virtually any entity paid more than the threshold $600 be filed on and a copy be sent to them.

The Republicans propose that all new regulations be evaluated as to cost to their cost to the economy, and that any new regulation with a cost exceeding $100-million will in the future require direct congressional approval.

I agree with most of what you have written. I would also require that new regulations be evaluated in the social cost to the community as well. How that is done, I don't know, but I do believe the real wealth of our country always remains the people.

 

[JakeStarkey]

In other words, weasel meat, you refuse to inform yourself fully but want to offer unsupported opinions then attack others who point out that is nonsense. I do know that if you, Bern80, were in a basic business history class, much less a graduate one, you would receive a failing grade based on your arguments in this thread.

 

[editec]

POWER CORRUPTS.

Doesn't much matter whether the power stems from the financial or the political realm, that truism ought to be obvious and IS obvious to anybody who is even remotely familiar with history.

 

[Bern80]

In other words, weasel meat, you refuse to inform yourself fully but want to offer unsupported opinions then attack others who point out that is nonsense.

I answered your direct quesion about what regulations I don't have a problem. That kinda blows your intitial assumption about what I believe that you are too chicken shit to admit to out of the water. You are arguing against ghosts weasel and you don't have the integrity to admit it.

I do know that if you, Bern80, were in a basic business history class, much less a graduate one, you would receive a failing grade based on your arguments in this thread.

And yet you still can't tell me what the argument was that I failed so miserably at.

 

[JakeStarkey]

weasel meat, you have done no such thing. Of course I have told you what you failed miserably: you failed miserably at making a concise, clear argument support with fact and other solid evidence. Until you make an argument in context, kiddo, you are fail.

 

[Bern80]

weasel meat, you have done no such thing. Of course I have told you what you failed miserably: you failed miserably at making a concise, clear argument support with fact and other solid evidence. Until you make an argument in context, kiddo, you are fail.

There's nothint to fail at when no argument is made. That's rule one of jake Starkey play book. I learned well from you. That as long as I never actually make a declarative statement I can't lose. Since I have made no statements to the extent I think corporations should regulated I don't see what there is to fail at.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rule one is that if you make an assertion, Bern80, you have to support it.

You did not.

Until you do, fail.

 

[Bern80]

Rule one is that if you make an assertion, Bern80, you have to support it.

You did not.

Until you do, fail.

'If' would be the operative word there weasel. And as far as I can tell I made no such assertion that there should be no regulation whatsoever of corporations. If I did that was not my intent nor what I believe. So again you are barking up the wrong tree.