Government Did Not Build Your Business

[flacaltenn]

Anyone of you all know a businessman who built their business on government contracts?

I do. His machine shop wouldn't be in operation w/o his guvmint contracts.

How could this be. The guvmint doesn't build business's.

And why are all the rethugs crying about the coming defense cuts. Worried about laying off workers.
Who owe their jobs to the guvmint. Just like the executives owe their jobs to the guvmint.

Raytheon didn't become this huge corporation all by itself. It took the guvmint spending money with them for that business to thrive. Raytheon didn't build the guvmint. And they wouldn't have grown without the guvmint. Whats up with that?

Nothing is ever as simple as a simple minded Republican would like it to be.

Fact of life there whiney... Government didn't build the Saturn 5 or the moon lander, but that didn't stop them from slapping a 40 FOOT NASA Logo on the parts did it? Should have looked more like a Nascar paint job with Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE all over it..

Government SHOULDn't be making things. They SHOULD be buying them. They are just another customer to serve.. Nothing special at all.. That customer goes away -- we'll find a new one. I know MAJOR divisions of defense contractors that swing back and forth between tasks and customers all the time..

 

[Bfgrn]

Anyone of you all know a businessman who built their business on government contracts?

I do. His machine shop wouldn't be in operation w/o his guvmint contracts.

How could this be. The guvmint doesn't build business's.

And why are all the rethugs crying about the coming defense cuts. Worried about laying off workers.
Who owe their jobs to the guvmint. Just like the executives owe their jobs to the guvmint.

Raytheon didn't become this huge corporation all by itself. It took the guvmint spending money with them for that business to thrive. Raytheon didn't build the guvmint. And they wouldn't have grown without the guvmint. Whats up with that?

Nothing is ever as simple as a simple minded Republican would like it to be.

Fact of life there whiney... Government didn't build the Saturn 5 or the moon lander, but that didn't stop them from slapping a 40 FOOT NASA Logo on the parts did it? Should have looked more like a Nascar paint job with Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE all over it..

Government SHOULDn't be making things. They SHOULD be buying them. They are just another customer to serve.. Nothing special at all.. That customer goes away -- we'll find a new one. I know MAJOR divisions of defense contractors that swing back and forth between tasks and customers all the time..

First of all you are wrong about the Saturn 5.

Second, you are wrong even if they had painted NASA in huge block letters. Does your mailbox have the name of the builder of your house? Is it YOUR house or is it the builders house? Did Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE donate the hardware???

 

[Neotrotsky]

The US gov't had help here

Sixty years ago the US hired Nazi scientists to lead pioneering projects, such as the race to conquer space. These men provided the US with cutting-edge technology which still leads the way today, but at a cost.

Under this criterion even von Braun himself, the man who masterminded the Moon shots, would have been ineligible to serve the US. A member of numerous Nazi organisations, he also held rank in the SS. His initial intelligence file described him as "a security risk".

And von Braun's associates included:

Arthur Rudolph, chief operations director at Nordhausen, where 20,000 slave labourers died producing V-2 missiles. Led the team which built the Saturn V rocket. Described as "100 per cent Nazi, dangerous type".​

Kurt Debus, rocket launch specialist, another SS officer. His report stated: "He should be interned as a menace to the security of the Allied Forces."
​

Hubertus Strughold, later called "the father of space medicine", designed Nasa's on-board life-support systems. Some of his subordinates conducted human "experiments" at Dachau and Auschwitz, where inmates were frozen and put into low-pressure chambers, often dying in the process.​

 

[flacaltenn]

Anyone of you all know a businessman who built their business on government contracts?

I do. His machine shop wouldn't be in operation w/o his guvmint contracts.

How could this be. The guvmint doesn't build business's.

And why are all the rethugs crying about the coming defense cuts. Worried about laying off workers.
Who owe their jobs to the guvmint. Just like the executives owe their jobs to the guvmint.

Raytheon didn't become this huge corporation all by itself. It took the guvmint spending money with them for that business to thrive. Raytheon didn't build the guvmint. And they wouldn't have grown without the guvmint. Whats up with that?

Nothing is ever as simple as a simple minded Republican would like it to be.

Fact of life there whiney... Government didn't build the Saturn 5 or the moon lander, but that didn't stop them from slapping a 40 FOOT NASA Logo on the parts did it? Should have looked more like a Nascar paint job with Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE all over it..

Government SHOULDn't be making things. They SHOULD be buying them. They are just another customer to serve.. Nothing special at all.. That customer goes away -- we'll find a new one. I know MAJOR divisions of defense contractors that swing back and forth between tasks and customers all the time..

First of all you are wrong about the Saturn 5.

Second, you are wrong even if they had painted NASA in huge block letters. Does your mailbox have the name of the builder of your house? Is it YOUR house or is it the builders house? Did Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE donate the hardware???

Thanx Dad -- I was so young then. But I wasn't when I worked on Launch Instrumentation at KSC in the late 70s...

Guess there's only about 2 of them and biggest one might only be 6 or 8 feet tall..
Maybe this was my childhood of Moon Missions..

[/IMG]


And no -- to my knowledge there MIGHT be a couple GE appliances in my house with PROUD logos on them (because they made them). And Rockwell COULD own the company that makes my fancy security system.. But the HOAssoc won't let me do 20 foot logos on my massive mansion..


Point is --- the Prez wants us to credit EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but generally the FEDs are pretty stingy with acknowledgements of who actually BUILDS their stuff for them..

 

[Bfgrn]

Fact of life there whiney... Government didn't build the Saturn 5 or the moon lander, but that didn't stop them from slapping a 40 FOOT NASA Logo on the parts did it? Should have looked more like a Nascar paint job with Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE all over it..

Government SHOULDn't be making things. They SHOULD be buying them. They are just another customer to serve.. Nothing special at all.. That customer goes away -- we'll find a new one. I know MAJOR divisions of defense contractors that swing back and forth between tasks and customers all the time..

First of all you are wrong about the Saturn 5.

Second, you are wrong even if they had painted NASA in huge block letters. Does your mailbox have the name of the builder of your house? Is it YOUR house or is it the builders house? Did Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE donate the hardware???

Thanx Dad -- I was so young then. But I wasn't when I worked on Launch Instrumentation at KSC in the late 70s...

Guess there's only about 2 of them and biggest one might only be 6 or 8 feet tall..
Maybe this was my childhood of Moon Missions..

[/IMG]


And no -- to my knowledge there MIGHT be a couple GE appliances in my house with PROUD logos on them (because they made them). And Rockwell COULD own the company that makes my fancy security system.. But the HOAssoc won't let me do 20 foot logos on my massive mansion..


Point is --- the Prez wants us to credit EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but generally the FEDs are pretty stingy with acknowledgements of who actually BUILDS their stuff for them..

The reality is President Obama has given the MOST credit to the builders of any President. But not only credit, he has handed them the keys to the car, and the house.

The irony is so thick here, it truly boggles the mind.

Who is the President on this list who privatized the space industry...pick one.

1) Dwight Eisenhower
2) John F. Kennedy
3) Lyndon Johnson
4) Richard Nixon
5) Gerald Ford
6) Jimmy Carter
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) William Clinton
11) George W. Bush
12) Barack Obama

Maybe these are the Nascar logos you were talking about?

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel - Business Insider



At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement from Elon Musk

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

–Elon–

 

[buckeye45_73]

First of all you are wrong about the Saturn 5.

Second, you are wrong even if they had painted NASA in huge block letters. Does your mailbox have the name of the builder of your house? Is it YOUR house or is it the builders house? Did Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE donate the hardware???

Thanx Dad -- I was so young then. But I wasn't when I worked on Launch Instrumentation at KSC in the late 70s...

Guess there's only about 2 of them and biggest one might only be 6 or 8 feet tall..
Maybe this was my childhood of Moon Missions..

[/IMG]


And no -- to my knowledge there MIGHT be a couple GE appliances in my house with PROUD logos on them (because they made them). And Rockwell COULD own the company that makes my fancy security system.. But the HOAssoc won't let me do 20 foot logos on my massive mansion..


Point is --- the Prez wants us to credit EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but generally the FEDs are pretty stingy with acknowledgements of who actually BUILDS their stuff for them..

The reality is President Obama has given the MOST credit to the builders of any President. But not only credit, he has handed them the keys to the car, and the house.

The irony is so thick here, it truly boggles the mind.

Who is the President on this list who privatized the space industry...pick one.

1) Dwight Eisenhower
2) John F. Kennedy
3) Lyndon Johnson
4) Richard Nixon
5) Gerald Ford
6) Jimmy Carter
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) William Clinton
11) George W. Bush
12) Barack Obama

Maybe these are the Nascar logos you were talking about?

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel - Business Insider



At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement from Elon Musk

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

–Elon–

I'm for privitization......so good job Obama!!!!!!!!! now lets do it with everything else!

 

[Bfgrn]

Thanx Dad -- I was so young then. But I wasn't when I worked on Launch Instrumentation at KSC in the late 70s...

Guess there's only about 2 of them and biggest one might only be 6 or 8 feet tall..
Maybe this was my childhood of Moon Missions..

[/IMG]


And no -- to my knowledge there MIGHT be a couple GE appliances in my house with PROUD logos on them (because they made them). And Rockwell COULD own the company that makes my fancy security system.. But the HOAssoc won't let me do 20 foot logos on my massive mansion..


Point is --- the Prez wants us to credit EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but generally the FEDs are pretty stingy with acknowledgements of who actually BUILDS their stuff for them..

The reality is President Obama has given the MOST credit to the builders of any President. But not only credit, he has handed them the keys to the car, and the house.

The irony is so thick here, it truly boggles the mind.

Who is the President on this list who privatized the space industry...pick one.

1) Dwight Eisenhower
2) John F. Kennedy
3) Lyndon Johnson
4) Richard Nixon
5) Gerald Ford
6) Jimmy Carter
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) William Clinton
11) George W. Bush
12) Barack Obama

Maybe these are the Nascar logos you were talking about?

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel - Business Insider



At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement from Elon Musk

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

–Elon–

I'm for privitization......so good job Obama!!!!!!!!! now lets do it with everything else!

Privatization works well on many ventures, but not ALL ventures. Health care is the best example of the failure of privatization.

 

[buckeye45_73]

The reality is President Obama has given the MOST credit to the builders of any President. But not only credit, he has handed them the keys to the car, and the house.

The irony is so thick here, it truly boggles the mind.

Who is the President on this list who privatized the space industry...pick one.

1) Dwight Eisenhower
2) John F. Kennedy
3) Lyndon Johnson
4) Richard Nixon
5) Gerald Ford
6) Jimmy Carter
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) William Clinton
11) George W. Bush
12) Barack Obama

Maybe these are the Nascar logos you were talking about?

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel - Business Insider



At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement from Elon Musk

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

–Elon–

I'm for privitization......so good job Obama!!!!!!!!! now lets do it with everything else!

Privatization works well on many ventures, but not ALL ventures. Health care is the best example of the failure of privatization.

Total Health Expenditures Per Capita, U.S. and Selected Countries, 2003

You cant compare them....first of all what kind of procedures are they getting......you get the best in the US.....elsewhere.....not so sure.....and are they getting care or are they killing off the old folks?
we need ALOT more date before that chart becomes clear.

 

[Clementine]

The government has also imposed limits on the number of loans banks can make to people starting up small businesses. The existing small businesses are hurting, many have laid off people and it is doubtful there will be much hiring. Obamacare alone will wipe out more small businesses. It's almost like he is trying to stop job creation and kill the existing jobs.

 

[Bfgrn]

I'm for privitization......so good job Obama!!!!!!!!! now lets do it with everything else!

Privatization works well on many ventures, but not ALL ventures. Health care is the best example of the failure of privatization.

You cant compare them....first of all what kind of procedures are they getting......you get the best in the US.....elsewhere.....not so sure.....and are they getting care or are they killing off the old folks?
we need ALOT more date before that chart becomes clear.

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

 

[Bfgrn]

The government has also imposed limits on the number of loans banks can make to people starting up small businesses. The existing small businesses are hurting, many have laid off people and it is doubtful there will be much hiring. Obamacare alone will wipe out more small businesses. It's almost like he is trying to stop job creation and kill the existing jobs.

Ray McGovern, a retired CIA agent whose expertise was the old Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries says the propaganda coming out of Fox News is at the same level as Pravda. But I suspect most Russians knew Pravda was propaganda.


President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act

• Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses

• A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs

• A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund

• An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending

• Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.

• Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments

• Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments

• Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation

• A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed

• Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions

• An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses

• A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits

• Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

 

[Listening]

Privatization works well on many ventures, but not ALL ventures. Health care is the best example of the failure of privatization.

You cant compare them....first of all what kind of procedures are they getting......you get the best in the US.....elsewhere.....not so sure.....and are they getting care or are they killing off the old folks?
we need ALOT more date before that chart becomes clear.

The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy

America's health care is at the bottom of all industrialized countries.

A recent study reported in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine compared the amounts of money spent by nineteen Western countries on health care relative to their respective gross domestic product (GDP). The authors, Professor Colin Pritchard of the Bournemouth University School of Health and Social Care, and Dr. Mark Wallace of the Latymer School of London, ranked countries by the average percentage of GDP spent on health care between 1979 and 2005. They then looked at mortality rates for “all adults” (15-74 years old) and for just the “older” population (55-74) to determine a cost-effective ratio, i.e., how much “bang for the buck” each country has been getting for the money spent. The conclusions are striking.

Increasing Health Care Costs

It will come as no surprise that health care costs have gone up everywhere. In 1980, Sweden spent nine percent of its GDP on health care. The USA came in second at 8.8%. Most countries averaged about 7.1% of GDP. In 2005, the picture had changed. The United States was far in front of all other countries, spending an average of 12.2% of its GDP for all public and private health care costs. Germany was a somewhat distant second at 9.7%, with the average for all countries standing at 7.4%. In other words, while average health care expenditures increased from 7% to 7.4%, America’s costs jumped from 8.8% to 12.2% of GDP over the same span of time.

Mortality Rates

The study then looked at trends in mortality rates for both the entire adult population (15-74) and for older people (55-74). Deaths per million population were looked at, and the authors found that mortality rates had declined in segments of this population in every country, an indication that medical science has indeed improved over the past few decades.

Utilizing standard statistical tools and analysis, the authors then ranked the same 19 countries according to their effectiveness in reducing the mortality rate for the elderly populace ages 55 to 74. Comparing the amount of money spent by each country on health care and the reduced mortality rates, the countries fell into the following ranking:

1 Ireland
2 United Kingdom
3 New Zealand
4 Austria
5 Australia
6 Italy
7 Finland
8 Japan
9 Spain
10 Sweden
11 Canada
12 Netherlands
13 France
14 Norway
15 Greece
16 Germany
17 USA
18 Portugal
19 Switzerland

Conclusions

Take a look. America outspends everyone else by far on health care, and has shown the least amount of improvement on mortality rates, with the exception of Portugal and Switzerland. Why does the United States do such a poor job?

The authors give several potential reasons, including regional disparities in health care availability in a country as large as the US, the much higher rate of firearms-related homicides here, and the higher number of un-insureds we have. The study is, however, consistent with other reports that show the USA is doing a poor job of health care for its citizens. A recent UNICEF report looked at “well-being” of children among major industrialized countries (e.g. material wealth, family relationships, health care), and found the United States ranking 23rd of 24 countries reviewed.

Universal vs. Private Health Insurance

There is one factor common to the top 15 countries on the above list. They all have strong state funding of single-payer universal health care, instead of insurance based health care tied to employment. The bottom four countries – Germany, USA, Portugal and Switzerland – all depend more heavily on profit-based, private health insurance provided primarily through the employer/employee relationship.

Conclusions....someone better make sure this is an apples to apples comparison.

Which it isin't.

But this thread is about Obama's speech and "you didn't build that....."

Please take your tired worn out B.S. to some other thread.

 

[flacaltenn]

First of all you are wrong about the Saturn 5.

Second, you are wrong even if they had painted NASA in huge block letters. Does your mailbox have the name of the builder of your house? Is it YOUR house or is it the builders house? Did Rockwell, Grumman, Lockheed and GE donate the hardware???

Thanx Dad -- I was so young then. But I wasn't when I worked on Launch Instrumentation at KSC in the late 70s...

Guess there's only about 2 of them and biggest one might only be 6 or 8 feet tall..
Maybe this was my childhood of Moon Missions..

[/IMG]


And no -- to my knowledge there MIGHT be a couple GE appliances in my house with PROUD logos on them (because they made them). And Rockwell COULD own the company that makes my fancy security system.. But the HOAssoc won't let me do 20 foot logos on my massive mansion..


Point is --- the Prez wants us to credit EVERYONE and EVERYTHING, but generally the FEDs are pretty stingy with acknowledgements of who actually BUILDS their stuff for them..

The reality is President Obama has given the MOST credit to the builders of any President. But not only credit, he has handed them the keys to the car, and the house.

The irony is so thick here, it truly boggles the mind.

Who is the President on this list who privatized the space industry...pick one.

1) Dwight Eisenhower
2) John F. Kennedy
3) Lyndon Johnson
4) Richard Nixon
5) Gerald Ford
6) Jimmy Carter
7) Ronald Reagan
8) George H.W. Bush
9) William Clinton
11) George W. Bush
12) Barack Obama

Maybe these are the Nascar logos you were talking about?

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel

Obama Wants To Privatize Space Travel - Business Insider



At Long Last, an Inspiring Future for Space Exploration

Statement from Elon Musk

The Apollo Moon landing was one of humanity's greatest achievements. Millennia from now, when the vast majority of the 20th century is reduced to a few footnotes known only to erudite scholars of history, they will still remember that was when we first set foot upon a heavenly body. It was a mere 66 years after the first powered airplane flight by the Wright brothers.

In the 41 years that have passed since 1969, we have yet to surpass that achievement in human spaceflight. Since then, our capability has actually declined considerably and to a degree that would yield shocked disbelief from anyone in that era. By now, we were supposed to have a base on the Moon, perhaps even on Mars, and have sent humans traveling on great odysseys to the outer planets. Instead, we have been confined to low Earth orbit and even that ends this year with the retirement of the Space Shuttle.

In 2003, following the Columbia accident, President Bush began development of a system to replace the Shuttle, called the Ares I rocket and Orion spacecraft. It is important to note that this too would only have been able to reach low Earth orbit. Many in the media mistakenly assumed it was capable of reaching the Moon. As is not unusual with large government programs, the schedule slipped by several years and costs ballooned by tens of billions.

By the time President Obama cancelled Ares I/Orion earlier this year, the schedule had already slipped five years to 2017 and completing development would have required another $50 billion. Moreover, the cost per flight, inclusive of overhead, was estimated to be at least $1.5 billion compared to the $1 billion of Shuttle, despite carrying only four people to Shuttle's seven and almost no cargo.

The President quite reasonably concluded that spending $50 billion to develop a vehicle that would cost 50% more to operate, but carry 50% less payload was perhaps not the best possible use of funds. To quote a member of the Augustine Commission, which was convened by the President to analyze Ares/Orion, “If Santa Claus brought us the system tomorrow, fully developed, and the budget didn't change, our next action would have to be to cancel it,” because we can't afford the annual operating costs.

Cancellation was therefore simply a matter of time and thankfully we have a president with the political courage to do the right thing sooner rather than later. We can ill afford the expense of an “Apollo on steroids”, as a former NASA Administrator referred to the Ares/Orion program. A lesser President might have waited until after the upcoming election cycle, not caring that billions more dollars would be wasted. It was disappointing to see how many in Congress did not possess this courage. One senator in particular was determined to achieve a new altitude record in hypocrisy, claiming that the public option was bad in healthcare, but good in space!

Thankfully, as a result of funds freed up by this cancellation, there is now hope for a bright future in space exploration. The new plan is to harness our nation's unparalleled system of free enterprise (as we have done in all other modes of transport), to create far more reliable and affordable rockets. Handing over Earth orbit transport to American commercial companies, overseen of course by NASA and the FAA, will free up the NASA resources necessary to develop interplanetary transport technologies. This is critically important if we are to reach Mars, the next giant leap in human exploration of the Universe.

Today, the President will articulate an ambitious and exciting new plan that will alter our destiny as a species. I believe this address could be as important as President Kennedy's 1962 speech at Rice University. For the first time since Apollo, our country will have a plan for space exploration that inspires and excites all who look to the stars. Even more important, it will work.

–Elon–

I like those paint jobs A LOT BETTER.. Now THAT'S a celebration of cooperation ain't it?
Wouldn't mind seeing a Wendy's logo or a "Marry Me Tasha" sign either. Put em on the crawler too. Kinda like a pace car.. Yee Haw..

Didn't really need a list of 12 Prezs to figure out how you were gonna spin this..

HOWEVER --- Basic research should still benefit from a robotic exploration of the Universe. And if we INVITED other countries to participate, not thru some egalitaritarian UN style mobfest, but thru expertise -- we've got a universe to explore.

 

[Listening]

From the Article:

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010—going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

Then this gets held up:

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act
Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses
A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs
A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund
An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending
Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments
Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments
Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed
Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

Which is nothing more than more regulation and red tape. You are running a small business .....how do you even find out about this stuff ? Bfgneoelodln has no clue as to what it means to deal with all this B.S. Hardly any of it helps anyone who can't afford lawyers and tax consultants.

 

[Katzndogz]

Part of the general decrease among young people in starting small businesses is that so many young people are looking more toward a career of government dependency, not owning their own business.

 

[flacaltenn]

From the Article:

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010—going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

Then this gets held up:

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act
Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses
A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs
A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund
An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending
Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments
Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments
Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed
Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

Which is nothing more than more regulation and red tape. You are running a small business .....how do you even find out about this stuff ? Bfgneoelodln has no clue as to what it means to deal with all this B.S. Hardly any of it helps anyone who can't afford lawyers and tax consultants.

In all honesty Listening -- those moves by Obama signal to me the 1st recognition that HE KNOWS his Collectivist Class Warfare approach needs a tune-up.. Those are HOPEFUL signs that he's been whipped into submission and NOW really REALLY wants to fix things.

I couldn't come up with a comprehensive plan to increase the rate of start-ups and innovative bizs, but both of know it's key to preserving the economy of this country. And no amount of donut shops, green jobs or Linked-Ins is gonna make a diff. I can only hope that Obama has been told what the difference is...

 

[oreo]

I approve of this thread but I did not create my thought to do so.

Well you might as well take credit for it anyway--- Obama did.

"If you own a business--you didn't build that--someone else made that happen"--Barack Obama

"If you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

 

[Bfgrn]

From the Article:

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010—going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

Then this gets held up:

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act
Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses
A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs
A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund
An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending
Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments
Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments
Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed
Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

Which is nothing more than more regulation and red tape. You are running a small business .....how do you even find out about this stuff ? Bfgneoelodln has no clue as to what it means to deal with all this B.S. Hardly any of it helps anyone who can't afford lawyers and tax consultants.

So what you are saying is small businessmen and women aren't smart enough to manage their businesses or navigate through the applications required.

WOW, you really look down on small businessmen and women.

 

[Listening]

From the Article:

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010—going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

Then this gets held up:

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act
Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses
A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs
A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund
An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending
Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments
Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments
Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed
Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

Which is nothing more than more regulation and red tape. You are running a small business .....how do you even find out about this stuff ? Bfgneoelodln has no clue as to what it means to deal with all this B.S. Hardly any of it helps anyone who can't afford lawyers and tax consultants.

So what you are saying is small businessmen and women aren't smart enough to manage their businesses or navigate through the applications required.

WOW, you really look down on small businessmen and women.

Only a lemming asswipe like yourself could ever come up with that kind of interpretation.

The article talks about small businesses tailing off. Why don't you explain that.

Arrogance does not even begin to describe the witless self worth the left has for itself.

 

[Bfgrn]

From the Article:

The Kauffman Foundation, which has been tracking the rate of business startups since 1980, reports they have hit an all time low. Its new study, "Where Have All the Young Firms Gone?" finds that “Building on a long-term trend, the nation's business startup rate fell below 8 percent for the first time in 2010, marking the lowest point on record for new firm births.” The study adds, “New firms as a percentage of all firms continued a steady downward trend in 2010—going from a high of 13 percent (as a percentage of all firms) in the 1980s to just under 11 percent in 2006 before making a steep decline to the 8 percent in 2010.”

This decline is critical to job creation. A July 2010 study, "The Importance of Startups in Job Creation and Job Destruction," by Kauffman senior fellow Tim Kane found that since the 1980s, new startups “create an average of 3 million new jobs annually. All other ages of firms, including companies in their first full years of existence up to firms established two centuries ago, are net job destroyers, losing 1 million jobs net combined per year.” Kane came to the astonishing conclusion, “Startups aren’t everything when it comes to job growth. They are the only thing.”

Then this gets held up:

President Obama Signs Small Business Jobs Act
Extension of Successful SBA Recovery Loan Provisions —Immediately Supporting Loans to Over 1,400 Small Businesses
A More Than Doubling of the Maximum Loan Size for The Largest SBA Programs
A New $30 Billion Small Business Lending Fund
An Initiative to Strengthen Innovative State Small Business Programs – Supporting Over $15 Billion in Lending
Eight New Small Business Tax Cuts – Effective Today, Providing Immediate Incentives to Invest

The President had already signed into law eight small business tax cuts, and on Monday, he is signing into law another eight new tax cuts that go into effect immediately.
Zero Taxes on Capital Gains from Key Small Business Investments
Extension and Expansion of Small Businesses’ Ability to Immediately Expense Capital Investments
Extension of 50% Bonus Depreciation
A New Deduction of Health Insurance Costs for Self-Employed
Tax Relief and Simplification for Cell Phone Deductions
An Increase in the Deduction for Entrepreneurs’ Start-Up Expenses
A Five-Year Carryback Of General Business Credits
Limitations on Penalties for Errors in Tax Reporting That Disproportionately Affect Small Business

Which is nothing more than more regulation and red tape. You are running a small business .....how do you even find out about this stuff ? Bfgneoelodln has no clue as to what it means to deal with all this B.S. Hardly any of it helps anyone who can't afford lawyers and tax consultants.

So what you are saying is small businessmen and women aren't smart enough to manage their businesses or navigate through the applications required.

WOW, you really look down on small businessmen and women.

Only a lemming asswipe like yourself could ever come up with that kind of interpretation.

The article talks about small businesses tailing off. Why don't you explain that.

Arrogance does not even begin to describe the witless self worth the left has for itself.

You didn't provide a link. It seems pretty easy to understand. Lending institutions that Bush and Paulson bailed out are not lending.