Local Republican activist Michael Der Manouel Jr. has written a column for us today that says the presidential race has come to this: "So we now have a choice between 'the guys that screwed it up' or the 'guy that will screw it up even more.' No wonder most voters are ticked off."
Der Manouel says a Barack Obama presidency won't be good for people who run small businesses or the people who work for them. He's now planning his "Obama budget for next year."
Click here to read Der Manouel's commentary.
Mr. DerManouel's argument looks like classic "trickle down" economics to me. We've tried that since the 80's, and we can see where that got us.
You mean the greatest country in the history of the world. Yep, that is what it got us.
Loaning money to people who couldn't afford it has created a lot of pain right now, but make no mistake, if we don't let business keep more of what it earns the country is finished. Mike D. you can run it.
Small business owners are the heroes of our economy. They take the risks to follow their dreams, hire employees and give them opportunities. When an employee screws up, he may lose his job but there are no other ramifications. The boss has to clean up the mess that may even close his business.
To tax small businesses just to give money to people who haven't earned it is a death knell and unfair. With higher taxes, businesses raise their prices and cut expenses - usually employees. That's a lose/lose for everyone.
How about leaving businesses alone, let them grow and hire more people who then can participate in the economy by earning their money, not a hand out.
We were the greatest country in the world before the 80's. We still are, but not by as much. And we have the greatest disparity in wealth in decades, if not longer, and a middle class that's struggling to survive economically. That's not healthy for either democracy or capitalism, Mike.
It took a Democrat to get us out of the depression, now it will take one to get us out of the recesseion.
Michael, the only thing is Reagan's trickle down economics was hardly based on loaning money to those that cant afford it. What ever it was, it didn't seem to work under the 8 years of Republicans House and the Administration direction. On the contrary we are in historic may debt.
Mike you also stated,
"...He's tied to the lowest rated Congress in American history, led by Democrats Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. His foreign policy experience is zilch, and he's never been the CEO of anything.
Since when do you have to be a CEO of anything to get the Country out of a recession? FDR was not a CEO but had advisors to guide him. I think Warren Buffet knows a thing or two about business and is an economic advisor to Obama.
President Bush was a CEO of Spectrum 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_7) and it failed, yet the people voted him into office TWICE!
Also don't give credit to the lowest ratings of Congress to Pelosi and Reid. (Most) all the years attributed to low ratings was from a Republican held congress and White House. They had pretty much free rein on policy decisions and look where we are now.
I was suprised you didn't throw the kitchen sink along with Bill Clinton, Lewinski, and all the tasty cigars! I bet it was tempting:)
---------
Also Fresno Bee funny how we don't get a liberal business man's perspective. Other then Mikes businessman perspective. I guess it would be bad for business with the boycotting rampage Republicans are known for,even here in the Valley.
"Just Rich"...have you ever run a business? I know a local liberal(I assume by the bumper sticker) who opened a day spa(high end) in the foothills(low to med income) in the middle of an economic downturn, failing to get the proper permits or submitting a business plan with the county, never paid the landlord a dime and this week will declare bankruptcy.Whose fault was it?Based on what was said...Apparently everybody but the operator.I was part of and ran a successful business in SoCal for 25 plus years with one hundred employees through good times and bad times and I know "Mickey D" is right on the money.You're just running your mouth because you don't have the onions.That's why socialism and Obama fit your way of thinking.You'll still have BDS long after President Bush has moved on.Meanwhile guys like "Mickey D" and me will pick up the slack for guys like you and your leftist buddies.
Brian,
Not suprising that you would use a person who failed, as a stick man for your example.
You know a liberal you assume by a bumper sticker? Thats a stretch.
Also don't be so quick to call me out on my back ground, you have no idea.
Does Bush's policies fit you definition of success the past 8 years?
Socialism is not in the mix but it fits you sniping character to assume it is the Democrats' MO.
I think McCain's dwindling poll numbers are making you a little grumpy, and mean spirited.
Show some maturity and call people their names.
Socialism already exists in our system with the earned income tax credit given to low income families. It provides up to $4000 free money to offset their payroll taxes. (They don't pay income taxes). I just read Obama's tax plan and he wants to triple the amount. $12,000 tax free?
Another democrat ran on a middle class tax cut. After about a month in office, Bill Clinton said that he worked as hard as he could but couldn't get us a tax cut. Instead, he raised them on the elderly. Since Obama has no record of ever voting to cut taxes, I don't see him all of a sudden become a tax cut champion.
Would love a liberal business perspective:
Tax and regulate me into prosperity and take my money and give it to other people! Tax me more and give the proceeds the people who can buy from me! Actually, my plan has worked every time its been tried but we've gotten away from it.
And Mike D - we don't need the government managing the distribution of weath. That is called communism and its failed everywhere its been tried.
And, Congress approval ratings were low in 2005, and notice, I don't defend my own party when they are wrong. Your guys took it to 9% and it will go even lower, I promise.........
"Just Rich"...tell us about yourself.True,I don't know you but your BDS and whining fit a stereotype of a do nothing lefty.So tell me,like Obama...I'm all ears.Furthermore,I'm not grumpy at all because I know how to succeed on my own(according to the God's will).I do not need/want Obamacare.I also do not believe the bilge that comes out of the media so I am a very optimistic person in contrast to the lemon sucker you are.I can see you blaming President Bush for all perceived failures till you become fertilizer.What a miserable existence...but please tell us who you are.Start with baby steps...like your last name.
Mike (aka "Mickey D.," per Brian),
There's a big, vast, happy middle ground between laissez-faire capitalism and communism. Don't be so fearful. Nudging the tax rate a few points for high income earners isn't going to plunge us into the throes of Marxism. The top tax rates are much lower these days than they were back in the days when the GOP was still the party of fiscal conservativism.
Brian
This is not the forum to share with you my life or anyone elses. Your stuck in your religious "Gods will", grumpy, liberal media bias skeptic mode.
Obviously you still seem to be in a dervish trance spinning round and round oblivious to your suroundings.
Calling people names as "just rich" and "lemon sucker" only diminishes your credibility and polarizes dialogue.
Are you "born again"? Try doing it again and again until you get it right and come back with sombody with compassion, kind of like what is written in that black book that most so-called Christians believe they are.
It does not matter at this point to explain to you who I am. I've already put you in a box with your own help, thanks.
Senator Obama's "wealth spreading" idea is nothing new. Our government has been practicing wealth spreading for 95 years now-ever since the federal tax code came into existence in 1913. Under our current progressive tax rates, the wealthy pay higher taxes. The richest 5 percent of Americans pay well over half of all federal taxes. That is how the 40 percent of Americans, that pay no federal taxes, can enjoy the benefits of various social programs. This country needs no more top-to-bottom shifts of wealth, unless Obama wants to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. And kill he will if elected. It has been said that Republicans mess things up, but Democrats somehow make bigger srew-ups.
"Just Rich"... You and the other cowards who are afraid to put yourself out there while spewing your BDS mantra and lapping up the vomit fed to you by the Bee and the media as truth and objectivity would be laughable were it not so disgusting.Keep hiding in the dark with your boxes. Mike(D)...you are not "Mickey D".That is reserved for that beacon of sanity Michael Der Manuel Jr.Mike(D)...I suggest you pick up a copy of "Chicken Soup for the Communist/Socialist Soul" Meanwhile...Obummer(in a PR move) is going to see his typical white Grandma(if she's as bad off as they say I would have gone 2 or 3 days ago)while the leftist media is focusing on Gov.Palin's wardrobe purchases.Obviously she is developing a pattern of major corruption here that makes Barry's shady dealings and associates seem like charitable contributions and Boy Scouts.You one name gutless wonders are such dupes.
Brian, my post was addressed TO "Mickey D.," making it clear that I borrowed the term from you. I wasn't signing off as Mickey D. But your lack of reading comprehension might go a long ways to explaining some of your views.
The bottom line is: what will Obama do to job-creating small businesses?
Can we trust what he says? We only have a carefully crafted media image. What is he hiding? Everything in his campaign seems to be a strategic pander.
Based on pass performances and statements, Obama’s platform on business and taxes wants to punish hard work, productivity and achievement To Joe the Plumber - "Spread the wealth around..." - we are taking it from you!
It’s hard to look like "the messiah," when you keep talking like Karl Marx.
We are in a serious crisis and people are praising Barck Obama as the savior of America, but he has no experience and the man he chose for VP seems to have no faith in his abilities. Obama's economic plan will destroy our country, he can't fund all of his socialist programs and cut taxes to 95 percent of Americans. It won't work, but it sounds great especially to those in financial crisis. The gov will help us out, give us what we deserve, and at the same time we will pay less taxes. Only an idiot would buy that, but then you have to ask yourself who are all these idiots voting for, "Obama." Even if Obama is elected he won't be able to make all these changes he's promised and he'll just blame Bush. He can't even figure out which baseball team to support in the World Series and we expect him to be our leader. "Canada here I come."
Mike(D)...My mistake and I accept full responsibility.I will punish myself appropriately...in private.
His plan is "Trickle up proverty" Those who can not produce will leach, soon those who produce won't. Remember the USSR as we become The Ununited Solcialist States of America...USSA.
Sorry, we've tried that "give tax breaks to the rich, and blessings will flow" approach. The rather simplistic theory is that the rich will invest the money in local businesses, creating good jobs for all. In actuality, with our global economy, the rich will invest the money wherever they think they will get the biggest return or satisfaction, whether it be factories in China, or R&D in India, or a chateau in France. Some of it ends up here, but we haven't gotten the bang for the buck that we were promised. So why not try giving the breaks to the rest of us, who will have little choice but to spend or invest that money here, and pump those dollars back into our economy? That's not communism, that's just smart capitalism.
"For the first time in my adult lifetime I'm really proud of my country." Michelle Obama
"We were the greatest country in the world before the 80's. We still are, but not by as much." Mike Dunne
It's the facts, Bart. If you prefer mindless jingoism, you'd better stick to listening to Rush.
Mike(D)...again I suggest a copy of "Chicken Soup for the Communist/Socialist Soul".There's a touching story in there about how Lenin "Spread the Wealth Around" and I wouldn't knock the rich comrade...I've never gotten a job from a poor man.
Indeed there are a couple of facts that should be instantly comparable for anyone who watches that border long enough.
Nice U turn Mike.
Sorry, Bart, you're not making sense to me (again).
Brian, if it's socialism you want, how about Gov. Palin taxing the oil companies (from the money we pay for gas) and giving each Alaskan a check just for living there? Talk about "spreading the wealth around."
(Now I'll wait for all the convoluted rationales as to why Palin's spread-the-wealth system isn't socialism, but Obama's is.)
I believe Palin's experience with oil companies which contracted to do business with the State of Alaska is not comparable to Obama's implementation of wealth redistribution.
Obama's national vision would, if he were elected, be more like Cuba where slightest rise in staus, political or economic, is targeted for investigation in the interest of the collective.
Okay, you think Palin's spread-the-wealth program is different, but why? Just because you say so? Could the State of California impose a special tax on all business that contract with the State, and send annual checks to all of us? Isn't that still a tax?
Mike
When was the last time you saw any business tax money pryed from the hand of a California governor to be distributed to us?
That is my answer.
Why don't you answer my question first, Bart? - Instead of trying to change the subject.
And in spite your assertion, your question was not in any way an answer.
Mike, every time you're tempted to justify something by saying 'other people do it too' you should know you're already losing your argument.
Tony, is that like saying we should vote yes on 8 because other people have been doing it like this for years?
Nothing to justify here, Tony. "Socialism" is your bogeyman, not mine. But while you're here, maybe you can explain why Obama's "spread the wealth plan" is "socialist," but Palin's isn't.
Mike
Since the folks who rely on you to conduct the hypnosis here must be disappointed by now I understand the scratch in your record.
From what little I know of Palin's deal with the oil companies, it's not different in principle from Obama's socialist tax policies.
A tax or fee or revenue-share to recover public costs of administering infrastructure or services to support a private development would not be 'redistributionist.' But from the little I've read about it it sounds like Palin's office simply used the funds the Alaskan state government receives from the deal to distribute out general payments back out to taxpayers. Not different. I love Palin and I'd be happy if the details of that deal reveal another story. But so far that's not how even her own administration has portrayed it.
It doesn't make Obama any less of a moron about economics. Socialism is a completely discredited economic system, but because the opportunity costs are widely distributed and the consequences will take years to show, it's doubtful he will be held accountable except to the verdict of far-off (for us) history.
If the state government in Alaska had sold publicly-owned land to the gas pipeline developer (I actually don't know if it even is an oil company or not and shouldn't have assumed that in my post), then it would not be socialist to have distributed out those revenues to the people, because they were the owners of the land.
But from what I know about the pipeline, the government's cut is a licensing fee, shaking down the developer for the 'right' to raise the capital and take the risks of building the facility. And the money from that being 'spread around.' And yes, that's socialism just as boneheaded as Obama's.
P.S. Be that as it may, Palin's deal was a vast improvement over Murkowski's intended plan. His was socialist in the opposite direction: socialized costs and privatized benefits. Palin's socialized the benefits and concentrated the costs. Both are intellectually indefensible, but Murkowski's was corrupt.
Tony, thanks for your honesty. That's refreshing around here. I disagree with your assessment of socialism as being "discredited," though. In fact, a blend of socialism and capitalism works pretty well throughout most of the nations in the world that have the freest societies and most prosperous economies.
Bart, I'm sorry, but once again I have no idea what you are trying to communicate.
Bart... dude... get some sleep.
My brother manufactured his own invention. Colleagues from the employer's
representation (Guild) asked him why he supported the unions. His answer
was not Marxist, Socialist or whatever politics are cropping up in this thread.
My brother's answer was simple economics...."It is important that people can
afford my product." So, spreading the wealth is not always political, but prudent
economics. Business greed usually gets in the way, hiding behind conservative
politics.
You don't have to send him back to his native "socialist country" . He never
left it, and enjoys a higher living standard than I do here Fresno. Our needs
are taken care of. But were we to take our Dollars to live there, at least
one week out of every month we would have to hibernate, for lack of money.
Capitalism is good, but when it morphs into plutocracy, the Middle Class pays
the devastating dues. Our present economy is living testimony. Can the new
president restore the hay days of the great American Middle Class?
Dizzy...just when were the "Hay Days" of the middle class? To be in poverty in the USA means you only have one car,two TV's and a cell phone while collecting your government assistance.The middle class has never had it so good.Unions do not make products cheaper they put companies out of business by forcing higher costs(aka.benefits)on them.Their tactics border on extortion. Talk about greed and corruption...the socialists have that market cornered.
We seem to disagree upon which strata of American life is the Middle Class.
And it is not and never was the economic strata that was on government
handouts (as you seem to think.)
I never implied that the trade unions made products cheaper. But it is my
(learned) contention that the bargaining process results in living wage,
and living wage results in consuming, consuming in more producing and
so forth. National economies are always artificial in the highly industrialized
countries, and can be managed with sound national planning.
As for the obsession with the evils of socialism.....the moment a group of
people form a government based on democratic principles (in contrast to
totalitarian) it becomes somehow socialistic. Yes! Even the United Sates.
Widening ones horizons is always more productive than sitting around
and being angry and spending mental effort as to how to insult every
body who does not share your views. Diversity is what makes a culture
interesting.