The Myth That Businesses Don't Hire Because of ObamaCare or Obama Might Raise Taxes

[Quantum Windbag]

Nope. Just prevent them from making them in the first place. Which is the problem.

If I can make a $3 profit selling a $5 item and then the government regulation increases the production from $2 per item to $7 per item, my potential profits have been eliminated. The only option I have is to increase the price, which decreases potential profits. Especially if a competitor can keep their product at the $5 range.

Those with more flexibility to eat costs, such as a large corporation, will have a better chance at surviving than a small business on a tight budget.

LOL! Well nothing like going juuust a little EXTREME! So. A tax or regulation that increases cost 350%?!?!?! Yeah, THAT is um, well, yeah okay. Get that analogy from Drudge, did you?

How much does the minimum wage law increase the price of a product?

 

[IndependntLogic]

What happened? Someone come in and point out that there are plenty of businesses that are actually not hiring because of Obamacare, and provided the links to back it up?

No. I used the blog because I'm on several boards and it's just easier that way. Unfortunately CaliGirl had a shit fit went all menstral at the mods and they deleted it. Some people are just small and petty. Waddya gonna do?

No Worries! I'll cut & paste on this board. Here ya go!

"Small and big businesses aren't hiring because of ObamaCare and / or because Obama is so anti-business, they're concerned he'll raise taxes!"
I've seen this foolish propaganda posted by Joe Average on several internet boards, in the comments sections of the Wall Street Journal and CNN and so on. Lord only knows who came up with this nonsense.
Obviously, whoever it was counted on an audience with two qualities:
1. They never owned or ran a small to medium sized business and
2. They never had division level or greater management experience in a large company.
Small Business
If a small business like mine experiences an increase in demand for their products or services, we have to react. If that means hiring more people, so be it. The key advantages of small business are speed and flexibility. If they do not capitalize on market conditions and opportunities, they won't remain in business long.
Additionally, small businesses can realize an immediate increase in revenues of ten to up one thousand percent. Remember, many small businesses realize gross revenues of less than one hundred thousand a year. A sudden surge in demand and in some cases, a single order can launch a small company to the next level.
So the idea that a business owner wouldn't hire the people needed to meet that demand because of a health bill that doesn't even take effect for years, is preposterous. The same goes with a tax increase that may never take place.
Big Business
Big businesses aren't as flexible or nimble as their smaller counterparts but the concept that a large business wouldn't hire to meet demand and increase profits is just as absurd. Managers are responsible for the profitability of their group or division. Executives are responsible to the board and / or shareholders at the quarterly meeting.
If a surge in demand occurs that could net the company millions or hundreds of millions, Executives and managers don't fail to meet the demand because of a few thousand dollars in benefits or a tax increase that may or may not ever occur.
For example, Motorola has been hiring at all levels for over a year. Why? The introduction of their answer to the IPhone (the Droid) exceeded all expectations. There was zero chance that the executives of Motorola would have gone to the shareholders and said "Well, we decided not to make the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased profits, because some day years from now, there might be an increase in one part of the benefits package we offer employees or maybe Obama might raise taxes some day."


Other examples of companies that have been aggressively hiring to meet demand are Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis and Aflac. Demand has increased for their products or services. They have hired to meet that demand. That's just business basics.

Personally, I consider ObamaCare a disaster and one of his biggest mistakes. To me, the bill is 1,800 pages of pure garbage and four pages of good ideas (eliminating pre-existing conditions, covering kids through college). But it has absolutely no impact on my hiring decisions or those of other executives. We view ObamaCare and taxes exactly the same way. If we can realize a gain in profits, we'll figure out how to deal with the other factors. That's why we're in charge. If we can't, then we shouldn't be in charge

Good, you provide one opinion, which means I get to counter it with multiple opinions of people who are actually involved in a business, not writing blogs about business. (I used to be a business consultant, I know the difference between talking about business and running one.)

Gov't Regulations at Top of Small-Business Owners' Problem List

Doesn't look like they think government regulation/taxes/Obamacare is a myth.

Do try to pay attention. I never said ObamaCare is a myth. I said the position that companies do not hire, solely because of ObamaCare or the perception that taxes might be raised someday, do not stop them from hiring if there is an increase in demand that justifies a hire.

You post is meaningless in that it doesn't address hiring, at all. it is a generic question about problems facing businesses but not what incites or prevents them from hiring. One of the problems I have is tech-networking etc... Guess what? It doesn't stop me from hiring. And if demand is high enough, it could be a HORRIBLE problem and I'm still going to hire. If you ran a business, you would understand this. In this case, you're so fixated on trying to prove me wrong about something, you've allowed yourself to grasp a straw(man) in that effort.

Y'all just might want to take a peek before posting the Standard ConservaRepub Pat Answer From Page 9 of the Pundit Prep Sheet.

OhPoo: I name two examples in the OP. My business (I don't hide behind the anonymity of the net) and Motorola - which kinda blows the whole "They're not hiring because of Obama!" thing right out of the water.
Other examples are Sears, Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis, Aflac...


Any competent management will weigh all of the benefits and liabilities of hiring, and will proceed in whatever way they consider beneficial to the overall benefit of the company. What you ignore, is that the uncertainty in the tax and regulatory future, is a large element of the possible future liability, and results in many less jobs than would occur without that uncertainty. The overall difference in the millions of decisions over whether to hire, or not to hire, determine the business environment, not specific entities that make decisions that you like.

This is a valid point and I concede that you're correct when you say ObamaCare might be a minor, acnillary factor. What the OP points out is that many people think that ObamaCare (which does indeed, suck) and the mere possibility that Obama might raise taxes someday, are the complete and sole reasons why companies aren't hiring - which is simply ludicrous. Again, if any of those companies were experience a sudden and dramatic increase in demand, they would hire as necessary - just as Motorola has.

And. conversely, if they were not experiencing an increase in demand, they might choose to sit on their money rather than reinvest in new equipment and a new product like they normally would when they weren't concerned about the potential impact of taxes/Obamacare/regulations.

Which actually supports my point. Only a fool is so blinded by ideology, they think that ObamaCare or even Obama is the cause of all our problems. The CMBS market crashed before he took office. He could have handled many things better. Unlike those who are unable to examine things objectively, I can both criticize his shortcomings andacknowledge his successes. Unemployment followed the crash. This was exacerbated by off-shoring jobs and technological advances. Some sectors simply won't recover for a long time. So until recently, demand has stayed low in virtually ever market segment. All those factors have contributed much more to the lack of hiring than a single piece of legislation that hasn't even taken effect.
But those whose opinions are formed by party rather than analysis want to blame Obama for all woes and so we get posts like yours.

 

[Avatar4321]

Business pesons probably do want higher profit.

Businesses do want higher profits. That's the entire reason a business exists. If people didn't make a profit, they would be unable to live and they would be pursuing other areas of employment that would help them provide for themselves and their families.

Hence, why it really isnt rocket science to understand that when government increases regulations, the costs of compliance to those regulations cuts into profits, some to the point where they become unprofitable and either have to ship the business somewhere where the costs are lower, they have to lay people off, or they go bankrupt and we have less businesses in the country.

This is preciseley why less regulation tends to increase economic growth.

If employees are a liability to a company they should lay them off regardless of Obama.

You seem to be stupid.

And they have been the past 3+ years. That's the problem. Increased regulation is making it more expensive to hire labor, leading to less labor being hired.

Which ones?

The real question is which ones won't be increasing costs? Do you have any idea how many regulations were passed last year alone? You think that isn't going to increases strain on small businesses while the bigger businesses the left loves to hate aren't going to continue to profit regardless?

Any business you own would fail miserably as you'd be more concerned with the cost of an employee than whether or not the additional revenue brought by that employee would exceed their cost.

Why on earth wouldnt you be concerned with the cost of an employee? If the additional revenue they bring does not exceed theire cost, why would you hire them?

You are addressing the very problem we are pointing out. When government artificially increases the costs of hiring people, it creates a situation where it is more likely that the costs of hiring will outweigh the benefits. When it does that, less people will be hired. Which is exactly the problem we are pointing out and that you're dismissing!

 

[Avatar4321]

How much does the minimum wage law increase the price of a product?

Quite a bit.

Regardless, we should abolish the Federal minimum wage and allow the states to decide what they want theirs to be. It would be much more practical because, if as the left indicates, we need a minimum wage to address the cost of living. Allowing the states to address minimum wage would be wiser just because the cost of living is different state to state.

 

[Avatar4321]

Heck of a lot of fear mongering Pub BS though, not to mention the no compromise "un-American" (TIME) paralysis that led to the credit rating drop, according to S+P.

STILL better than another Pub scandal ridden boom (for the rich) and bust (for the rest)...A DEPRESSION that cost 3 trillion to avert...

The credit rating was dropped because there was a compromise that failed to cut any spending.

Cant take responsibility for your own bullcrap can you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do try to pay attention. I never said ObamaCare is a myth. I said the position that companies do not hire, solely because of ObamaCare or the perception that taxes might be raised someday, do not stop them from hiring if there is an increase in demand that justifies a hire.

I am pretty sure I did not say you said Obamacare is a myth, what I said is that your opinion is one man's opinion. I then provided an entire Gallup poll of actual business owners as to what there reasons why they are not expanding their business, and government regulations topped that list.

You, being a consultant, are trying to simplify the argument to one of a lack of demand. That is what consultants do, I know this because that is what I did, and that is what every consultant in the universe does. Motorola is expanding despite the uncertainty of taxes/regulations/Obamacare. Most companies, obviously, are not.

You post is meaningless in that it doesn't address hiring, at all. it is a generic question about problems facing businesses but not what incites or prevents them from hiring. One of the problems I have is tech-networking etc... Guess what? It doesn't stop me from hiring. And if demand is high enough, it could be a HORRIBLE problem and I'm still going to hire. If you ran a business, you would understand this. In this case, you're so fixated on trying to prove me wrong about something, you're grasping straws.

Your opinion is meaningless because it doesn't address reality.

See, I can make specious arguments just as stupid as yours. Your opinion is that demand will fix all the problems, businesses prefer to find ways to avoid new hires unless the demand is so large that it makes the risk worth it.

Facts of life outweigh opinions, even yours.

Which actually supports my point. Only a fool is so blinded by ideology, they think that ObamaCare or even Obama is the cause of all our problems. The CMBS market crashed before he took office. He could have handled many things better. Unlike the idiot whackjobs, I can both criticize his shortcomings andacknowledge his successes. Unemployment followed the crash. This was exacerbated by off-shoring jobs and technological advances. Some sectors simply won't recover for a long time. So until recently, demand has stayed low in virtually ever market segment. All those factors have contributed much more to the lack of hiring than a single piece of legislation that hasn't even taken effect.
But the Moron Brigade wants to blame Obama for all woes and so we get posts like yours.

Government is the source of all the problems. Let me repeat that, government is the source of all our problems. In San Francisco it takes thousands of dollars and months of work just to meet the city government requirements for starting a business. It is so bad here that the Board of Supervisors, a group that is so far left that they make Barhey Frank look like a rabid right wingnut, is actually working to reduce the regulations and make it easier to start a business, Then you have to add in state and federal government regulations that simply add to the problems.

I never said Obama was the problem. Unlike you, I don't simplify things simply because it makes it easier to make a point, I know what the problem is, and Obamacare just makes the problem worse, and that is not a myth.

 

[Avatar4321]

Government is the source of all the problems. Let me repeat that, government is the source of all our problems. In San Francisco it takes thousands of dollars and months of work just to meet the city government requirements for starting a business. It is so bad here that the Board of Supervisors, a group that is so far left that they make Barhey Frank look like a rabid right wingnut, is actually working to reduce the regulations and make it easier to start a business, Then you have to add in state and federal government regulations that simply add to the problems.

I never said Obama was the problem. Unlike you, I don't simplify things simply because it makes it easier to make a point, I know what the problem is, and Obamacare just makes the problem worse, and that is not a myth.

I have to disagree with one point. I dont agree that government is the source of all the problems. A whole heck of a lot, most certainly but not all of them.

The fact is we the people are also responsible for countless problems. We are supposed to hold government accountable. We've failed to do that. We have created economic problems by being dishonest and not practicing virtue in our lives. We are convinced through our pride that we are somehow unique in all of human history and all the bad things that have happened in the past will never happen to us. We lied to ourselves about how much debt we could afford. We've lied to ourselves by thinking being in business is somehow evil. We've been corrupted so much by progressive nonsense, that we dont even recognize where we are deficient.

Our Republic is weak because we the people are. Our government only has power to screw with our lives because we as individuals have refused to live virtuous lives and govern ourselves.

 

[francoHFW]

or is it Pub fear mongering about Obamacare? You betcha!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Government is the source of all the problems. Let me repeat that, government is the source of all our problems. In San Francisco it takes thousands of dollars and months of work just to meet the city government requirements for starting a business. It is so bad here that the Board of Supervisors, a group that is so far left that they make Barhey Frank look like a rabid right wingnut, is actually working to reduce the regulations and make it easier to start a business, Then you have to add in state and federal government regulations that simply add to the problems.

I never said Obama was the problem. Unlike you, I don't simplify things simply because it makes it easier to make a point, I know what the problem is, and Obamacare just makes the problem worse, and that is not a myth.

I have to disagree with one point. I dont agree that government is the source of all the problems. A whole heck of a lot, most certainly but not all of them.

The fact is we the people are also responsible for countless problems. We are supposed to hold government accountable. We've failed to do that. We have created economic problems by being dishonest and not practicing virtue in our lives. We are convinced through our pride that we are somehow unique in all of human history and all the bad things that have happened in the past will never happen to us. We lied to ourselves about how much debt we could afford. We've lied to ourselves by thinking being in business is somehow evil. We've been corrupted so much by progressive nonsense, that we dont even recognize where we are deficient.

Our Republic is weak because we the people are. Our government only has power to screw with our lives because we as individuals have refused to live virtuous lives and govern ourselves.

Government is the people, most of us just don't realize it.

 

[editec]

The Myth That Businesses Don't Hire Because of ObamaCare or Obama Might Raise Taxes

I'm not impressed with the OBama HC plan either, but the claim that businesses are't hiring because of that is another example of purse unadulterated right-wing bullshit.

 

[teapartysamurai]

"Small and big businesses aren't hiring because of ObamaCare and / or because Obama is so anti-business, they're concerned he'll raise taxes!"
I've seen this foolish propaganda posted by Joe Average on several internet boards, in the comments sections of the Wall Street Journal and CNN and so on. Lord only knows who came up with this nonsense.
Obviously, whoever it was counted on an audience with two qualities:
1. They never owned or ran a small to medium sized business and
2. They never had division level or greater management experience in a large company.
Small Business
If a small business like mine experiences an increase in demand for their products or services, we have to react. If that means hiring more people, so be it. The key advantages of small business are speed and flexibility. If they do not capitalize on market conditions and opportunities, they won't remain in business long.
Additionally, small businesses can realize an immediate increase in revenues of ten to up one thousand percent. Remember, many small businesses realize gross revenues of less than one hundred thousand a year. A sudden surge in demand and in some cases, a single order can launch a small company to the next level.
So the idea that a business owner wouldn't hire the people needed to meet that demand because of a health bill that doesn't even take effect for years, is preposterous. The same goes with a tax increase that may never take place.
Big Business
Big businesses aren't as flexible or nimble as their smaller counterparts but the concept that a large business wouldn't hire to meet demand and increase profits is just as absurd. Managers are responsible for the profitability of their group or division. Executives are responsible to the board and / or shareholders at the quarterly meeting.
If a surge in demand occurs that could net the company millions or hundreds of millions, Executives and managers don't fail to meet the demand because of a few thousand dollars in benefits or a tax increase that may or may not ever occur.
For example, Motorola has been hiring at all levels for over a year. Why? The introduction of their answer to the IPhone (the Droid) exceeded all expectations. There was zero chance that the executives of Motorola would have gone to the shareholders and said "Well, we decided not to make the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased profits, because some day years from now, there might be an increase in one part of the benefits package we offer employees or maybe Obama might raise taxes some day."


Other examples of companies that have been aggressively hiring to meet demand are Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis and Aflac. Demand has increased. They have hired to meet that demand. That's just business basics.

Personally, I consider ObamaCare a disaster and one of his biggest mistakes. To me, the bill is 1,800 pages of pure garbage and four pages of good ideas (eliminating pre-existing conditions, covering kids through college). But it has absolutely no impact on my hiring decisions or those of other executives. We view ObamaCare and taxes exactly the same way. If we can realize a gain in profits, we'll figure out how to deal with the other factors. That's why we're in charge. If we can't, then we shouldn't be in charge

Cut and paste left wing propaganda without a link to the original document (and the reason for that is, it probably came from a site like Common Dreams).

You can bleat all you want but liberals can't argue against cause and effect.

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

So, keep trying this. It won't wash with the voters. It's just more examples of liberals pointing fingers at anyone but themselves OR Obama.

BTW, Carter tried this when HE ran for reelection. That didn't work, either.

 

[zeke]

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

Gee I wonder if it had anything to do with the world wide recession???

Nah. Couldn't be that. Had to be the Obama HC law. Which hadn't even been written.
Yea thats it.

 

[chikenwing]

Which taxes on small businesses have risen?

Property taxes ,they go up every year.

A) No they don't.

B) WTF does that have to do with the federal government?

What world do you live in? ,mine where my company is located have gone up double digits every year for the past 10, its a cost.

The feds?,no direct connection other than the cost of mandates that are past down through the food chain to the locals then to me in a tax INCREASE

Its not that hard

 

[Oddball]

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

Gee I wonder if it had anything to do with the world wide recession???

Nah. Couldn't be that. Had to be the Obama HC law. Which hadn't even been written.
Yea thats it.

Like the USAPATRIOT Act, it had been written and stashed for at least a decade, if not more.

You don't think that they just pulled 2,700 pages of legislation and legalese out of their asses, do you?

 

[The T]

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

Gee I wonder if it had anything to do with the world wide recession???

Nah. Couldn't be that. Had to be the Obama HC law. Which hadn't even been written.
Yea thats it.

Like the USAPATRIOT Act, it had been written and stashed for at least a decade, if not more.

You don't think that they just pulled 2,700 pages of legislation and legalese out of their asses, do you?

Alot of this design has been going on and written since Wilson was in office...they've been waiting for an excuse to use it all.

 

[The T]

indeed................

uncertainty about increased regultory burdens, higher fees, and increased taxes would never enter the minds of business people in their planning

liberal, utopian, clueless "businesspeople" that is..............

The only ones that press on with business as usual are the ones that are already suckling at the Gubmint teat...

 

[IndependntLogic]

The Myth That Businesses Don't Hire Because of ObamaCare or Obama Might Raise Taxes

I'm not impressed with the OBama HC plan either, but the claim that businesses are't hiring because of that is another example of purse unadulterated right-wing bullshit.

Ah a voice of reason. I make clear that I think ObamaCare scuks balls (which of course, means I must be a "Liberal" ) but it is not the cause of all our problems.

"Small and big businesses aren't hiring because of ObamaCare and / or because Obama is so anti-business, they're concerned he'll raise taxes!"
I've seen this foolish propaganda posted by Joe Average on several internet boards, in the comments sections of the Wall Street Journal and CNN and so on. Lord only knows who came up with this nonsense.
Obviously, whoever it was counted on an audience with two qualities:
1. They never owned or ran a small to medium sized business and
2. They never had division level or greater management experience in a large company.
Small Business
If a small business like mine experiences an increase in demand for their products or services, we have to react. If that means hiring more people, so be it. The key advantages of small business are speed and flexibility. If they do not capitalize on market conditions and opportunities, they won't remain in business long.
Additionally, small businesses can realize an immediate increase in revenues of ten to up one thousand percent. Remember, many small businesses realize gross revenues of less than one hundred thousand a year. A sudden surge in demand and in some cases, a single order can launch a small company to the next level.
So the idea that a business owner wouldn't hire the people needed to meet that demand because of a health bill that doesn't even take effect for years, is preposterous. The same goes with a tax increase that may never take place.
Big Business
Big businesses aren't as flexible or nimble as their smaller counterparts but the concept that a large business wouldn't hire to meet demand and increase profits is just as absurd. Managers are responsible for the profitability of their group or division. Executives are responsible to the board and / or shareholders at the quarterly meeting.
If a surge in demand occurs that could net the company millions or hundreds of millions, Executives and managers don't fail to meet the demand because of a few thousand dollars in benefits or a tax increase that may or may not ever occur.
For example, Motorola has been hiring at all levels for over a year. Why? The introduction of their answer to the IPhone (the Droid) exceeded all expectations. There was zero chance that the executives of Motorola would have gone to the shareholders and said "Well, we decided not to make the hundreds of millions of dollars in increased profits, because some day years from now, there might be an increase in one part of the benefits package we offer employees or maybe Obama might raise taxes some day."


Other examples of companies that have been aggressively hiring to meet demand are Macy's, United Health Care, Lockheed, Avis and Aflac. Demand has increased. They have hired to meet that demand. That's just business basics.

Personally, I consider ObamaCare a disaster and one of his biggest mistakes. To me, the bill is 1,800 pages of pure garbage and four pages of good ideas (eliminating pre-existing conditions, covering kids through college). But it has absolutely no impact on my hiring decisions or those of other executives. We view ObamaCare and taxes exactly the same way. If we can realize a gain in profits, we'll figure out how to deal with the other factors. That's why we're in charge. If we can't, then we shouldn't be in charge

Cut and paste left wing propaganda without a link to the original document (and the reason for that is, it probably came from a site like Common Dreams).

Um no, it just came from me - or rather my blog. Apparently, it is against the rules to link to your blog here.

You can bleat all you want but liberals can't argue against cause and effect.

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

Your logic is highly flawed. Unemployment began crashing before Obama took office and within six months, was in the vortex. That was before ObamaCare had even been introduced.

So, keep trying this. It won't wash with the voters. It's just more examples of liberals pointing fingers at anyone but themselves OR Obama.

I have no need to "point fingers". The company I own is doing better than it has since the market crashed under Bush. I've had to hire more people to keep up with demand. We're very blessed because our firm does business nationally so we don't have to depend on the local (Las Vegas) economy - which is still hurting.

BTW, Carter tried this when HE ran for reelection. That didn't work, either.
QUOTE]

Not sure what you think anyone is "trying". I offered facts and examples to support those facts. From your response, it seems you didn't even read the post - or are simply dodging the points and issues discussed.

There is a reason why unemployment rose drammatically AFTER Obama became president and it isn't because "Bush did it."

Gee I wonder if it had anything to do with the world wide recession???

Nah. Couldn't be that. Had to be the Obama HC law. Which hadn't even been written.
Yea thats it.

Pretty funny. It's amazing how many people seem to think Obama has such tremendous power over the private sector. Did you know that major companies will refuse to earn billions in extra profits because..... Obama exist!

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Nope. Just prevent them from making them in the first place. Which is the problem.

If I can make a $3 profit selling a $5 item and then the government regulation increases the production from $2 per item to $7 per item, my potential profits have been eliminated. The only option I have is to increase the price, which decreases potential profits. Especially if a competitor can keep their product at the $5 range.

Please use realistic examples. We're talking about CURRENT REALITY - not hypothetical reality. There is no tax that has gone up from $2 to $7.

There shouldn't even be a need for you to make up a hypothetical example - if its really happening then real reality should be littered with real examples that actually happen.

Those with more flexibility to eat costs, such as a large corporation, will have a better chance at surviving than a small business on a tight budget.

The latter statement is generally true, it has nothing to do with taxes or regulatory costs in particular. Large businesses can - in general - survive ANY obstacle better than small ones.

I haven't mentioned taxes whatsoever. I seriously think some of you underestimate how much compliance to government regulations can cost a business.

Great. We await the data that I'm sure you will provide us that will illuminate us to the true nature of the aforementioned quantity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Business pesons probably do want higher profit.

Businesses do want higher profits. That's the entire reason a business exists. If people didn't make a profit, they would be unable to live and they would be pursuing other areas of employment that would help them provide for themselves and their families.

Hence, why it really isnt rocket science to understand that when government increases regulations, the costs of compliance to those regulations cuts into profits, some to the point where they become unprofitable and either have to ship the business somewhere where the costs are lower, they have to lay people off, or they go bankrupt and we have less businesses in the country.

This is preciseley why less regulation tends to increase economic growth.

You've done a wonderful job of outlining your theory on this particular matter. I await the empirical evidence that I'm sure you have to back your theory.

And they have been the past 3+ years. That's the problem. Increased regulation is making it more expensive to hire labor, leading to less labor being hired.

Which regulations have increased? Do any of them have names? And have any of them cost businesses quantifiable amounts of money?

The real question is which ones won't be increasing costs?

Certainly that is the real question for someone incapable of naming the regulations he complains so much about and quantifying their cost on the economy, yes.

Do you have any idea how many regulations were passed last year alone? You think that isn't going to increases strain on small businesses while the bigger businesses the left loves to hate aren't going to continue to profit regardless?

How many? Do any have names? Please - I anxiously await your empircal evidence!

You are addressing the very problem we are pointing out. When government artificially increases the costs of hiring people, it creates a situation where it is more likely that the costs of hiring will outweigh the benefits. When it does that, less people will be hired. Which is exactly the problem we are pointing out and that you're dismissing!

That's a great theory - certainly reasonable. Please show us the empircal evidence that suggests it applies to a particular real world situation.

Thanks.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Property taxes ,they go up every year.

A) No they don't.

B) WTF does that have to do with the federal government?

What world do you live in? ,mine where my company is located have gone up double digits every year for the past 10, its a cost.

The feds?,no direct connection other than the cost of mandates that are past down through the food chain to the locals then to me in a tax INCREASE

Its not that hard

And you egotistically assume that the entire world must be similar to the place your company is located?

Your claims is that property taxes always go up. I present you two casese where they have gone down:

Property tax decrease to hit school districts

City Property Tax Decrease for 2012 Approved - Enumclaw, WA Patch


Your claim is thus disproven.