I'm working on starting a small business

Democratic lawmakers continued to take small bites at economic recovery Thursday, passing legislation to extend small-business loan guarantees and boost lending for home energy efficiency in rural areas.

The small business loan guarantees, which would have more impact on the north country, passed the Senate over Republican objections on a 61 to 38 vote, just as the home energy proposal passed the House with little support from the GOP.

http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/article/20100917/NEWS02/309179949

How will taking away the tax cuts from those that didn't need them to begin with be a problem? Do you define middle class as $250,000 per annum?

Or do you think that the richest 1-5% are really investing in the country?

Why do I see the libertarian version of "fuck it all" looking a lot like the GOP attitude of "fuck the middle class and working poor"?

Brian37 kicks ass.

No, you mentioned the expiration of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and how much damage it would do to the country. Yep an influx of income would just mess us up so bad.

So in other words, this bill will benefit those institutions that libertarians want to protect (banks, big business that fellate congresscritters and the wealthy)?

Personally I think the worst mistake Obama is making is trying to save capitalism. Libertarians like dismantling failed systems (or so they claim). How about getting rid of that one?

I hate the miss use of the word "capitalism". That is the wrong word to use.

Every country "capitalizes" off of something. Saudi Arabia capitalizes off of oil sales. China capitalizes off of labor and production. The only difference is the people and politics that benefit off of it.

The proper terms I would use are "open market" vs "closed market". An open market favors more choice. A closed market is one that benefits fewer and controlled by a few.

We think we have an "open market" in America. But we don't have a healthy open market, for the reasons I said in the prior post.

Untill the CEOs and shareholders learn to take less and put more back into the workers and our government invests in new innovations, we will continue to see the pay gap explode and we will only be able to compete with China if workers here become slaves and work in sweat shops ourselves.

We need to stop buying Hummers and Mustangs. We need to invest in alternative energy. We need to start manufacturing more and export more. We need to pay livable wadges and big business can pay for the health care of it's workers. They just don't want to.

There is no reason a pound of meat(any kind) should cost 5 bucks a pound. There is no reason a gallon of milk should cost more than a gallon of gass. As rich as this country is, it is bullshit for the corporate class to say they cant. They are just jaded selfish assholes.

It is not about being against wealth, it is about the gap and the only people in this country who can do anything about that gap don't seem to want to.

The banks and drug companies and oil companies are holding our economy hostage because the pricks at the top care more about their mansions than the people they sell their products to.

Why?

What are effective corporate tax rates at now, compared to other times in U.S. history?

Whatever will they do?

So you agree that big business paying off lawmakers to get loopholes is a problem but believe they should get tax breaks (loopholes) for all the things you mentioned? I don't think the tax code should be used to selectively give certain companies tax breaks but not others. 

Of course the cost gets passed to the consumers. Businesses have absolutely no money except the money they get from consumers. Every penny they have comes from consumers who have VOLUNTARILY purchased their product or service at the price the business asked. If you think a big business is ripping you off don't buy their products. Of course, when the government gets involved and uses tax payer money to subsidize businesses then suddenly the consumer has no choice. We are paying for companies like GM even if we don't own a GM vehicle because our government decided GM is "too big to fail". So when I consciously decide not to buy a GM product (which hasn't produced quality for about 10 years) and they start to fail my Congressman reaches into my pocket and takes out money to hand it to them. So you are right. Big business is fucking up our economy, and the government is helping them. 

As for my statement that raising taxes will cause the economy to slow, it has nothing to do with businesses intentionally slowing it. When you tax you are taking money out of the market. Less money in the market means a slower economy. Even if the government turns right around and puts it back into the market a certain amount is taken to pay for all the bureaucrats to manage, collect and track all that money. Since bureaucrats do not produce anything the economy slows. If the government uses it to pay off our debt of which much of it is held overseas our economy slows. No matter how you cut it, when you raise taxes on ANYONE the economy will slow because you are taking money out of it. It isn't a matter of evil businessmen wanting to get back at Obama for raising their taxes, it is simple economics 101. Now as I said, that doesn't mean you should never raise taxes. Just recognize that when you do, it will affect the market. 

But if we help WalMart, we help China, which then helps the world economy.

Oh well

1. When the businesses that require a profit already have more money than the government, I don't think it will be that hard for them to compete. As for "paying the medical bills for someone you know will be a net loss to you" I do that now when some dumb fuck decides that it's his right not to buy insurance. I get to pay for his libertarian ass.

2. Insurance trusts need to be busted - perhaps having the government as a player can make that happen. I don't think so as the gov't isn't going to be a big enough player. In fact, they're acting as an insurance broker for the private corps.

3. Small businesses can succeed without gov't help? You realize that half of all startups fail in the first year even with the help, right? How is "Fend for yourselves, fuckholes" going to be more beneficial? I agree again that they shouldn't be picking the big companies over the small ones. I just can't see how the "don't help anyone" solution is effective.

The largest losses in the medical field are medicare patients, most of them are not libertarians. Interestingly enough I just spoke to my brother yesterday who works for a large hospital. He said the hospital had the most patients ever last month but still lost $5 million mainly due to the government not reimbursing them for the full cost of all the medicare patients. But if you want to give medical bill collectors more power to go after unpaid bills I'm with you. If you can't pay your medical bills and didn't have insurance you should be forced to go bankrupt and every penny you own should go towards paying your bill. If we ditch medicare and make the old farts pay for their own medical care you solve a good portion of our current problems.

It will be impossible for insurance companies to compete. The current law requires that every person purchases insurance. Since we live in America and we have a little thing called the Constitution the government does not have the power to force you to enter a contract with a private company. It will most likely be ruled unconstitutional. When you take that provision out, what is to stop you from purchasing insurance only when you go to the doctor? The law requires the insurance company covers you no matter what. If people are buying insurance the day they go to the doctor the insurance companies will go bankrupt. The only ones that will survive will be the large ones that have deals with unions and the government. 

Agreed. And why do they exist now? Because the government regulated them into existence. Right now the industry is regulated state by state. To sell insurance inside a state an insurance company has to be cleared by the state insurance board. In many states you only have a couple of companies to choose from. Other states you have many choices and substantially lower premiums. It is illegal for you as an individual to purchase insurance across state lines. Since the whole point of the commerce clause was to prevent this type of situation congress could pass a simple one page law allowing insurance companies to sell nationwide and suddenly you have a lot of competition. No government program needed.

So what if they fail? When you invest in a new business you are taking a huge risk. The reason they fail is because they are doing something wrong. The reasons are limitless. Maybe someone thought it was a good idea to build a taco stand but it turns out no one in the area likes to eat tacos for lunch. So the business fails, should we use government money to keep a taco stand that no one eats at  open? Maybe someone thinks they have a great idea for the next version of beanie babies but can't get enough people to buy them at a high enough price, should we use government money to subsidize them? I worked for a recording studio for a minute the owner invested a ton of money but had no idea how to make a profit. The music sucked never got sold and he closed down. Should we use taxpayer money to keep him in operation? Other businesses shut down voluntarily. Sometimes people start doing it and decide it isn't for them. Starting a business is a lot of unpaid work.

It isn't a oneshot thing. Many times a business fails and the owner learns from their mistakes and starts again creating a better business. I had an uncle who ran a restaurant into the ground. He changed a few things and opened a new restaurant at a new location which he sold for a comfortable retirement sized profit a few years ago. If his first restaurant was kept afloat he never would have learned his lessons and would not have the success he has today. Failure isn't the end of the world. 

As for the "don't help anyone" solution being more effective, read my post on the robber barons. When people invest their own blood, sweat and tears they care a lot more about the outcome. That is where the entrepreneurial spirit comes from. A free capitalist market relies on inefficiency and failure being punished and efficiency and creativity being rewarded. When the government gets involved the result is encouraging inefficiency and removing the penalties for failure. When people are getting money from the government they simply don't care about it as much and will spend in unwisely or worse, use it to pad their own pockets while running the business into the ground. 

If someone has a good business idea and implements it their business will be successful. If someone has a bad idea they will lose all their money. I have the option of investing in new businesses and watching my fortunes rise or fall with the company. If I invest in a bad company I lose my money. Why should the government take my money then send it to businesses that I believe may have bad ideas? What gives you the right to take my money to invest in someone else's startup business? And at the end of the day, I wouldn't invest in a startup company where the owner is spending all their time applying for government help. If that is their focus I am willing to bet that they will eventually fail. I'll invest in the company where the owner spends time developing and implementing their business plan. Remember, the only way the government can "help" is by first taking money (and thereby hurting) someone else. And don't come back and say well the millionaires will pay for it. There aren't enough millionaires and they don't pay for it. Those who make 75-300k pay for it which happens to be the income range a lot of modestly successful small businesses fall into. So you are taking money from a successful small business to support their competition.

Does this mean that the requirement for auto insurance is also unconstitutional?  I know of people who only purchase auto insurance after they get a ticket for not having it and then they let it expire after showing proof of insurance to the judge. 

True, they are not able to purchase auto insurance to post-accident repair their auto, but most of these people are driving beaters that are junk yard material.

You are already paying for people without medical insurance.  The public hospitals, by law, must treat anyone who shows up, insurance or not.  And so the hospitals inflate their costs to the insurance companies to help cover these people.  Which inflates insurance costs.  We are all paying for people who can't afford health care, now, today, via the "free" market.  Do get over it.

No, for two reasons. First, owning auto insurance is only required to drive on public roads. Since the roads are public the government is able to regulate the requirements to use them which includes auto insurance, certain physical requirements for the vehicle, working lights etc. If you don't want to buy auto insurance don't drive a car on a public road. With the health insurance law you must own health insurance simply because you exist. Legally speaking that is a huge difference. Second, you are only required to buy auto insurance to protect OTHER drivers. You are not required to have auto insurance to cover damages to your own vehicle. So the requirement makes sense. If you are driving on a public road your actions may put others at risk so you must have insurance to cover any damage you may cause them.

The medical field is not a free market and thats why we have so many problems with it. If you go to a hospital you get treated regardless of your ability or willingness to pay. In a free market all the people who show up in the emergency room with a cold would have to pay for it or be turned away. If you go to the supermarket and take food without paying for it they won't let you take it out the door. You have to pay for everything else you require to live and if you steal it you go to jail, why should medical care be any different?

If we aren't going to give hospitals the same freedom a supermarket has to turn away people who can't or won't pay then we need to give them a lot more power to go after those peoples assets. But again, half of all unpaid bills are from medicare and medicaid because our government doesn't pay the bills they promised to pay. I'm sure everything will be just peachy when the government starts paying everyones bills.  

My argument is that the healthcare bill will necessarily lead to a single payer system because most health insurance companies will go bankrupt. So when that happens what will the government do? The most obvious answer is to create a single payer system. The big gov folks will come out and say "See the free market failed, we need government" and people will be mad after paying a boatload of money to insurance companies that go belly up. I doubt the politicians will throw up their hands and say whoops we messed up and need to undo what we did. I probably should have made that more clear but I wasn't really trying to compose an argument against healthcare in my post just illustrating one of the reasons I believe insurance companies will go bankrupt. I really hope I am proven wrong but how can an insurance company possibly survive when people don't buy insurance until they need to collect?  

Did I say most people who go to the emergency room have a cold? If I did that isn't what I meant. (Although according to the stats you provided 10% of emergency room visits are non-urgent so some people go who don't have to) I don't really care why people go to the emergency room as long as they pay for it. If you can't pay for it right away you should set up a payment plan. We already have a program to insure those who are truly destitute, it is called medicaid and many states also have similar programs, so mostly what we are really talking about with the uninsured are people who have some money but choose not to buy insurance (including yours truly). If you have money and no insurance and you go to the emergency room you should pay for it. If you own a cell phone and/or pay for cable tv you have money.