I guess I'm a vindictive consumer using your logic. I'm much more cautious about spending due to the uncertainty of the economy and my distrust of what is going on in DC. If the right Republican gets elected to the WH and I become more confident in the future of this country, my spending decisions will likely change. Why should a business owner/leader look at it any differently? Are you implying that business owners/leaders have some national obligation to spend their/their shareholders money to create jobs that aren't needed? Help me understand your post and the use of the word vindictive.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the market and the economy is more psychological than anything else. Business owners/leaders do not think that President Obama is pro business or supports a pro business legislative agenda. They are concerned. President Obama burned the bridge when he rammed Health Care Reform down the throats of Congress and the United States. He cannot rebuild it. Hillary would have a much better change of regaining the trust and confidence of the business types than President Obama does. If he gets re-elected, look for more of the same for an additional 4 years after re-election.

 

If the economy is shaky and someone's source of income is in question they are going to hold off on making big purchases as they would need that money if they lost their job. I agree with you there. The "Obama is creating uncertainty" argument seems to say that businesses could expand and grow profits, but don't because they fear Obama. This seems counterintuitive to me. If someone running a business had a strategy that would generate more profits, but refused to employ it, it would seem they would not be in the business game very long. What am I missing?

 

My own sense is that the business cycle hasn't turned over since coming out of a very bad recession. If the logic holds, downturns are something like vicious cycles where as some sectors or industries cut workers, lessen pay, etc. to gut out as much expense as possible there is then less money in the economy being spent on goods and services, causing other sectors and industries to begin gutting out expenses until the the economy grinds to a stop (the resulting peril of the almost exclusive focus on short term profits by investors). Vice versa for an upturn. I think we've reached and passed the nadir in this downturn, but businesses have been able to equal their former productivity levels and much of their profits with much leaner work forces. Coupled with the amount of competition seen from other countries, this does not bode well for the future of our country's economy, regardless of who is president. Will there be reason again to add American workers en masse?

I guess I'm a vindictive consumer using your logic. I'm much more cautious about spending due to the uncertainty of the economy and my distrust of what is going on in DC. If the right Republican gets elected to the WH and I become more confident in the future of this country, my spending decisions will likely change. Why should a business owner/leader look at it any differently? Are you implying that business owners/leaders have some national obligation to spend their/their shareholders money to create jobs that aren't needed? Help me understand your post and the use of the word vindictive.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the market and the economy is more psychological than anything else. Business owners/leaders do not think that President Obama is pro business or supports a pro business legislative agenda. They are concerned. President Obama burned the bridge when he rammed Health Care Reform down the throats of Congress and the United States. He cannot rebuild it. Hillary would have a much better change of regaining the trust and confidence of the business types than President Obama does. If he gets re-elected, look for more of the same for an additional 4 years after re-election.

 

I've been in small business for almost all of my career. For any small business that provides health insurance to its employees health insurance costs will rise more slowly under the health care act than they would without it. The ability to obtain large group rates will be a tremendous help to small business. I believe that we should start moving away from employer based health insurance. I think there are two good reasons for employer based health care. The first is the ability to get group rates. The health care act fixes that and allows individuals to get group rates. The second is the preferential tax treatment that employer based insurance receives. That makes no sense and should be changed. I think that thirty years from now the health care act will be viewed as one of the great and landmark legislative achievements of our nations history. You may be right about perceptions about the health care act. Certainly one side has spent a lot of time trying to scare people, but I don't think that is the reason business is not expanding very much. It is asimple question of demand. No business hires people unless it needs them. Right now the need isn;t there.

If employers weren't creating jobs for Americans in the height of the Bush era, they're not going to do it now, and it's my belief they won't do it even if someone other than Obama is president.

I guess I'm a vindictive consumer using your logic. I'm much more cautious about spending due to the uncertainty of the economy and my distrust of what is going on in DC. If the right Republican gets elected to the WH and I become more confident in the future of this country, my spending decisions will likely change. Why should a business owner/leader look at it any differently? Are you implying that business owners/leaders have some national obligation to spend their/their shareholders money to create jobs that aren't needed? Help me understand your post and the use of the word vindictive.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the market and the economy is more psychological than anything else. Business owners/leaders do not think that President Obama is pro business or supports a pro business legislative agenda. They are concerned. President Obama burned the bridge when he rammed Health Care Reform down the throats of Congress and the United States. He cannot rebuild it. Hillary would have a much better change of regaining the trust and confidence of the business types than President Obama does. If he gets re-elected, look for more of the same for an additional 4 years after re-election.

 

Sorry, LN, but what you describe is exactly the thought process that makes me feel that the excuse that Obama is the reason is posturing. It's simply not logical, and your description exactly describes holding jobs hostage until a Republican is in office. Frankly, I cannot fathom why anyone would feel any more secure with a Republican in office. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter who is in office, the economy isn't going to return to pre-2007 levels in a year following the election of whomever. And business owners are not losing money to any degree they can't live with, apparently. Some are even bringing down record profits...and they're doing it with fewer employees. They will not return to hiring as long as their profits increase with the workers they have, or less.

Im not an expert on taxes so I wouldn't know .

So you have nothing constructive to add, got it.

So you have nothing constructive to add, got it.

What do you think is a fair share ?

If employers weren't creating jobs for Americans in the height of the Bush era, they're not going to do it now, and it's my belief they won't do it even if someone other than Obama is president.

 

Small employers and small businesses will create jobs if there is a need. New jobs come from small businesses or VC groups like the Angel Network.

 

Large businesses have been 'globalizing' for years. That was sold to them by the management consulting groups - McKinsey, Accenture, D&T, etc. It would seem you are correct. That this will likely continue.

 

I saw the CEO of GE on CNN last night on something about how America will bounce back. It was a joke. The multi-nationals have sold out and they are not looking to re-patriot jobs they sent offshore any time soon. Sadly.

 

Small businesses hire locally, they can not or do not want to 'off-shore' or use 'global resources'. They are connected to the community.

What do you think is a fair share ?

10-15%, would lean more towards 10%. the current 35% is legalized robbery.

Bluegrass, I agree about small business except small business lives off of big business. The more big business globalizes the more it hurts small business. You know what they say about it rolling down hill.

What do you think is a fair share ?

 

For a start anyone with an income should pay income tax.

 

In the absence of that radical idea anyone who doesn't pay income tax should not get any kind of income tax refund.

 

If Warren Buffett feels like he should be paying more then I'm sure he has more then one accountant that can cut the check.

They will not return to hiring as long as their profits increase with the workers they have, or less.

 

Very good point. And if I were a business owner, with increasing profits and enough employees to meet the current demand, why would I hire more? Seems like sound business to me.

Then the republicans need to get off the kick of the current business environment (we don't like Obama) keeps us from hiring people. The simple fact is that they are making money now and don't need to hire. What will happen, however, is that demand will continue to go down as fewer and fewer people are working and even those that are making money - outside of wall street - will start to lose money.

Then the republicans need to get off the kick of the current business environment (we don't like Obama) keeps us from hiring people. The simple fact is that they are making money now and don't need to hire. What will happen, however, is that demand will continue to go down as fewer and fewer people are working and even those that are making money - outside of wall street - will start to lose money.

So businesses should hire people in hopes demand will increase?

Seems the rich are paying their fare share. http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

Seems the rich are paying their fare share. http://news.yahoo.com/fact-check-rich-taxed-less-secretaries-070642868.html

 

From Your Article - It does not deny that the rich pay a lower share even though the rate says it is higher.

 

With tax rates that high, why do so many people pay at lower rates? Because the tax code is riddled with more than $1 trillion in deductions, exemptions and credits, and they benefit people at every income level, according to data from the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress' official scorekeeper on revenue issues.