Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 LoneLictor wrote:

Spoiler:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

Or, instead of going with your insane strawman argument, we put stronger regulations on businesses.

Of course, you want to believe that all democrats are crazy communist pinkos.

I don't want to believe that...

Frankly, I truly think that most of them don't do this job for altruistic reasons (yes both Republicans & Demcrats).

What I'm tired of the sweeping generalization that businesses are "bad" and executive are screwing the public/workers just to line their pocket.

That is spoken by the "gimmie dat" mentality... and yet, you'll replie with some variation of "you just want them to pull themselves out by their bootstraps"... well, my retort would be... if you can, then yeah, pull yourself up by your fething bootstraps.

That is sensationalism... hence my vague commie snark.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 purplefood wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Considering they'll do that anyway if it means they save money it's moot point...
You need to regulate private companies otherwise they'll crap over everyone.
Obviously you don't over-regulate them or just remove them entirely but you can't just have a totally free market. Otherwise it'd be horrible...

There is a fine balance here... yes, some regulations are needed to keep 'em honest.

But, where's the line?

And where/when do you accept the results of our choices?

Amazing that business anywhere else in the world except the USA are making a profit. How is there even any business alive in the regulatory chokehold that is Europe...

Businesses aren't inherently bad but they aren't exactly beholden to their customers...
Their prime responsibility is to those that own them and their shareholders. Not their workers or their customers...
I wouldn't trust them in some areas unless they were regulated in some way...
Pharmaceuticals for example.

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Yep, that's what was said, "Businesses are bad."

It is amusing how many people get defensive when their sacred cow is branded.

whembly wrote:Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

Has anyone else noticed that Whembly, our reigning King of the Strawmen, doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism?

Grey Templar wrote:Its easy enough to replace "Making a Profit" with "improve our country's infrastructure and support our community"

Actually, they are polar opposites.

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.

 Surtur wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.

There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world

 youbedead wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.

There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world

That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:


[....]
one reason businessmen have proven bad presidents.

Really? i was under the impression of just the opposite, all of the best presidents at one point owned their own company and did well in the private sector

i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
finished research: using the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_occupation

after rank (from best to worst, top 10) is political views(conservative or liberal), then name, then ones marked with * owned their own businesses, followed by what they did before becoming politicians

1. (L/C)Abraham Lincoln * Land Surveyor, Lawyer
2. (C)Franklin D. Roosevelt * Lawyer
3. (C)George Washington * Land Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier
4. (L/C)Theodore Roosevelt * Public Official, Rancher, Soldier
5. (L)Harry S. Truman * Farmer, Men's clothing retailer
6. (C)Woodrow Wilson * Lawyer, professor, president of Princeton University
7. (L/C)Thomas Jefferson * Land Surveyor, Writer, Inventor, Lawyer, Architect, Farmer/Plantation owner
8. (L)John F. Kennedy Writer, Sailor (Navy Lieutenant)
9. (C)Dwight D. Eisenhower * Soldier, General, President of Columbia University
10. (L)Lyndon B. Johnson Teacher, Public Official


so assuming ones that portrayed both sides can be counted as a half, 4.5 of the top 10 presidents were liberal with 5.5 being conservative, thats too close to say conservatives are better, but of the ones that owned businesses, 5.5 were conservative while 2.5 were liberal, thats a significant gap. more than double. also the top 7 owned their own business with only 2 not
huffintonpost.com (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/presidents-entrepreneurs_n_1684521.html) which is known to be extremely liberal in its views have posted that the worst presidents were entrepreneurs, but their "list" of presidents who ran business is even shorter than my list (compiled independantly of theirs) and skips over several conservative president entrepreneurs, in fact, it only seems to highlight 3 "bottom tier" presidends: Hoover (the man behind the hoover dam) and the 2 Bush's. with a list of only 9 presidents out of 44, of which at least 25 are known to have owned or managed a business. while i only focused on the top 10, they focused on the bottom, of which they failed to make a compelling argument. if you have anything to add to this, please do.

I think by 'business owner' people in the thread, and specifically KK, meant presidents who have owned companies, in the vein of Mitt Romney, not just presidents that have owned a farm.

Also, I don't know why you've put that Lincoln and FDR were business owners, they were lawyers (or a lawyer and a lawyer/land surveyor) which I'm fairly sure doesn't qualify as 'business owner'

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

A nonsensical strawman argument with no value.

Are you drunk again?

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

Canada, France, Japan and heck Trinidad seem to be doing fine with their national health insurance systems.

 jordanis wrote:

i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.

No, you will be coding in a manner that is sympathetic to your point. That is not the same as presenting bald research, despite what academics will tell you*.


*Most of them are trying to justify their jobs, not describing reality.

 jordanis wrote:

1. (L/C)Abraham Lincoln * Land Surveyor, Lawyer

Young Lincoln's first business venture failed horribly, and never ran his own law firm.

 jordanis wrote:

2. (C)Franklin D. Roosevelt * Lawyer

Apparently being a lawyer means running a business. Someone should tell Fraz.

 jordanis wrote:

3. (C)George Washington * Land Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier

Terrible President. Defines: throw my hands in the air like I don't care.

 jordanis wrote:

4. (L/C)Theodore Roosevelt * Public Official, Rancher, Soldier

You listed "public official" first, good job supporting your point....

 jordanis wrote:

...."list" of presidents who ran businesses... if you have anything to add to this, please do.

Your list is crap, and clearly sourced from Wikipedia.

I was thinking more of the president's whose main claim to fame was business, George W Bush (though better known for his failed businesses) and Herbert Hoover.

 Melissia wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

A nonsensical strawman argument with no value.

Are you drunk again?

... I was... is it that obivious?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Spoiler:

whembly wrote:Wow... if businesses are soooo bad.

Lets get rid of them.

Let's have the Government provide everything we need, because we'll "elect" the representative to support our needs. If a minority doesn't want it or fund it, too bad... the majority rules.

Look how well Soviet Union, Cuba and Venezuela is doing... o'wait... nevermind.

Has anyone else noticed that Whembly, our reigning King of the Strawmen, doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism?
.

So, what do you mean by "socialism"? There's different flavors of socialism:
There's Marxism...
There's Social Democracy...
There's Market Socialims...
THere's Central Planning Socialism (aka USSR)...
??

Maybe we're missing each other?!

When I infer "socialism" I'm talking about the "central planning" planning part...

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.

There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world

That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.

Certainly, I should have clarified, the tax rates aren't the major cause of corporations leaving the US. I was refuting his belief that we have a low corporate tax rate (though businesses usally have an actual rate of 10-20% well short of the 35-35% they should be paying)

 youbedead wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Surtur wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
How far can one regulate business to where its not profitable for the owner/owners. I do not blame if businesses move to other countries to avoid spending 90% of their time ensuring every regulations is followed continously.

Businesses aren't moving away, they're outsourcing labor. Big difference. They pay our low tax rate and enjoy the stability while getting the cheap labor elsewhere when they can.

There are actually many businesses that are moving out of the US, are corporate tax rate is the highest in the world

That's counterbalanced by a lot of factors. There are many businesses moving out, many moving in, and many staying. The plight of America isn't that multinationals are headquartering elsewhere (they aren't in any meaningful numbers), nor is it that businesses that serve an american market are relocating and still serving that market (that's not a new thing and it's not a consistent strategy). These things are just little bobbles conservatives like to toss out to people who aren't very economically astute. They aren't real. Businesses are moving out of america most often because american standard of living and required wages aren't competitive with cheap asian/african/south american labor. Automation and cheap labor have made the modern factory worker obsolete and the american middle class was built on expensive and easy labor. There are growing foreign markets that businesses can relocate to, we aren't the sole buyer in the world any more. The tax rates have gak nothing to do with it, it has everything to do with Americans having and requiring a higher standard of living than competing BRIC nations.

Certainly, I should have clarified, the tax rates aren't the major cause of corporations leaving the US. I was refuting his belief that we have a low corporate tax rate (though businesses usally have an actual rate of 10-20% well short of the 35-35% they should be paying)

And that is what makes it one of the lowest.

http://www.kpmg.com/global/en/whatwedo/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx

Sorta OT...

Axelrod does have a point... Romney is doing a horrible job of explaining his plan (and yes, he does have planz)..

Notice how Axelrod not answer the age old question of " are voters better off now than four years ago? "

He also said balancing the budget is a bad idea.

 Jihadin wrote:
He also said balancing the budget is a bad idea.

\

It is, if your running a surplus then you're doing something very wrong

 dogma wrote:

 jordanis wrote:

i will be doing some homework now to prove my point, i expect you can do the same.

No, you will be coding in a manner that is sympathetic to your point. That is not the same as presenting bald research, despite what academics will tell you*.


*Most of them are trying to justify their jobs, not describing reality.

 jordanis wrote:

1. (L/C)Abraham Lincoln * Land Surveyor, Lawyer

Young Lincoln's first business venture failed horribly, and never ran his own law firm.

 jordanis wrote:

2. (C)Franklin D. Roosevelt * Lawyer

Apparently being a lawyer means running a business. Someone should tell Fraz.

 jordanis wrote:

3. (C)George Washington * Land Surveyor, Farmer/plantation owner, Soldier

Terrible President. Defines: throw my hands in the air like I don't care.

 jordanis wrote:

4. (L/C)Theodore Roosevelt * Public Official, Rancher, Soldier

You listed "public official" first, good job supporting your point....

 jordanis wrote:

...."list" of presidents who ran businesses... if you have anything to add to this, please do.

Your list is crap, and clearly sourced from Wikipedia.

my compilation was made in 20ish minutes at 2am for me, wikipedia was the only source of information i could find that wasnt a heavily biased "news" site, who cares if i listed public official first? that is irrelevant to my point, as the list was made in chronological order. my argument wasn't about successful businesses. and since when is George Washington a horrible president? he obviously did better than many to be ranked 3rd of 44 in public polls...
and when doing research, you find information that supports your argument, i even included some information that didnt support my argument and proceeded to debunk it. you just attacked my research without citing anything where i cited everything.

 youbedead wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He also said balancing the budget is a bad idea.

\

It is, if your running a surplus then you're doing something very wrong

No, you're saving money for the future when some gak hits the fan. Or you're paying off your debts, which means less interest payments.

Well. In a business sense. I see bringing back US troops from Europe (except Ramstein), Middle East (except Kuwait), Asia (most of the troops there), Bosnia and Kosovo, and Africa. Drawdown the additional brigades per Army division. A couple of carrier fleets get mothballed.

Seal the US borders from illegal immigration.

Increase NGP, oil and coal. Install solar farms in the desert, wind turbines and tidal turbines.

...that be a good start.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 youbedead wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
He also said balancing the budget is a bad idea.

\

It is, if your running a surplus then you're doing something very wrong

No, you're saving money for the future when some gak hits the fan. Or you're paying off your debts, which means less interest payments.

The only people that should ever be saving money are households, a business should be reinvesting profits and a gov should either reduce taxes or increase spending if they are running a surplus.

This is a very apt observation:

The political parties espouse two obviously different philosophies, neither right nor wrong. Republicans believe in individual achievement for the good of the whole. Democrats believe in collective achievement for the good of the individual. But right now, individuals are collectively hurting. And the Democrats are in power. That’s a mighty big challenge to overcome(DNC).

 jordanis wrote:

my compilation was made in 20ish minutes at 2am for me, wikipedia was the only source of information i could find that wasnt a heavily biased "news" site, who cares if i listed public official first?

I do, because I do this for a living. Presidential rankings are nonsense because they always turn on the ideology of the ranker.

 jordanis wrote:

my argument wasn't about successful businesses.

Your criteria makes all Presidents business owners.

 jordanis wrote:

and since when is George Washington a horrible president? he obviously did better than many to be ranked 3rd of 44 in public polls...

That only means people don't know how bad he was, or what the country* was like.


*Note, the "country" was geographically different from this one.

He was also the very first President to work with a very new Constitution for a very new country. Also a.....slave owner

presidential rankings would be based on their approval rating, which would be a fair way of assessing most popular (and more successful, because you dont get popular being unsuccessful, which is a mystery of Obama, but thats something else)
how does my criteria of "OWNED a business, successful or not" make all presidents business owners?
many presidents were slave owners, and many presidents make mistakes their first time around (never argued otherwise) George Washington also was the first with little previous experience to help him. again, you cite no facts, have no sources, just attack my argument with your beliefs.

I think that the US needs someone who is going to try and make ends meet financially.

A country cannot just keep running deficits.
Eventually it all falls in a heap like it has in Greece and there simply won't be enough money in the world to save you.