patrick.net

Call it Crazy says

Strategist says

Dear Governor Brown,

You said we need to reduce pollution, reduce the trade deficit, reduce asthma and respiratory illnesses due to pollution, and save the environment. You said I should buy a Prius, so I did.

Now you say I should get charged by the mile because the Prius is not consuming enough gas. Are you now saying I should not have got my Prius?

Thanks

Citizen

Ha Ha Ha.... How do you like your Prius NOW while living in paradise (CA)??

It's for sale.

I already pay outrageous taxes for just about everything, income tax, sales tax, property tax, all other miscellaneous taxes when buying sertain items.

And they want more taxes? Over my dead body!

Call it Crazy says

I think he might have been referring to this Medical Device Excise Tax as part of the ACA:

Already discussed.

Call it Crazy says

FortWayne says

And they want more taxes? Over my dead body!

They might tax that too....

They already do. They call it the Death Tax.

Lol you idiots voted these people into office, not me.

Strategist says

Call it Crazy says

FortWayne says

And they want more taxes? Over my dead body!

They might tax that too....

They already do. They call it the Death Tax.

If you can't afford to die, please don't. They will dig you up, just to get your coffin.

I was talking of 'geopolitical' conditions. I don't see nationalism rising in Germany. I don't see Iraq being ruined by war reparations. The set of problems we face now is totally different.

The key issue with your model is the fragility of the financial sector caused by debt. In the 20s, buying stocks on margin was making the stock market as vulnerable as the housing market became in the 2000s.

I don't see this happening now. On the opposite I see the financial sector being consolidated. Not that there is no margin debt now, but it doesn't compare to what the mortgage market problem was in 2005.

Idle cash, low interest rates, and corporate profits are a function of fed policies now, not rising debt in the private sector.

There is only so much you can make of an historical comparison to something that happened 80years ago. Everything was different then, including the financial system, the monetary system, the regulations etc...

The vulnerable points are in Asia. Nationalism is rising in Asia. Financial risks are huge in China and Japan.

also CA lawmakers said the poor, meaning those that already get a free lunch, won't be subject to this tax, they will get to drive their cadilacs for free.

don't be a working slob in this state, if you work here you are a fool.

This is land of the Free, not land of the Freedum, dummies !

Senator Mark DeSaulnier is a fool. What a royally stupid idea. The correct solution is HIGHER GASOLINE TAX.

Higher gasoline taxes promote more efficient vehicles, lighter vehicles, carpooling and lower miles driven per vehicle.

A pure per-mile tax is regressive and promotes wasteful behavior.

Imagine that Yellen had the temerity to mention this.

dublin hillz says

everyone would get a complimentary hummer

Are we talking the vehicle or ... ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1rjf7zdD-M&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Paralithodes says

Sure I could have told you... But why bother?

So I could appropriately point out where you are incorrect (like Bob already did).

Paralithodes says

You specifically asserted that in general there was literally LESS regulation today than decades ago

Yes, and that is a VERY different statement than the one you assert that I made:

tatupu70 says

and that new regulation does not impact small businesses

Paralithodes says

If that's the case, what's your issue: that I say it's "significant" and you disagree and think it's not significant?

Yes, I think I agree.

Paralithodes says

OK, for once, provide some type of evidence or logical explanation, based on the real world, for why you think it's not. Time for you to actually provide some info of value beyond your simple (and often obviously inexperienced) opinion.

I'm not sure what you are looking for here--do you want me to get 50 small business owners and give them a survey? How do I prove that it's insignificant? Showing that business formation correlates very well with economic health?

I would think it would be much easier for you to simply list out 25 new regulations that are significantly affecting small businesses--why can't you do that? If it's such a huge problem for them, it should be easy to do, right?

Call it Crazy says

The one I posted was instituted as part of the ACA as an Excise Tax, not a user fee...

Go back further, I talked about ACA excise tax. Affects everyone the same anyway. It's a tax not a regulation.

To the guy that uses a face of a Jewish invented Communist...... was there a point to the "Whiskey Rebellion" statement as being relevant to my post ??? I don't see any semblance of that refuting my post. At first, I thought you were saying someone there was the original American "homegrown terrorist", but that wasn't the case.

Mine was a reference to the Banksterberg & Banksterstein owned media........and how they can make anyone out to be evil, yet anyone not from that tribe of blood sacrificers may in fact have a more normal human view.........and not that more akin to Neanderthals.

Take anything you see in today's media with a large dose of doubt and make an effort to see the tribe's end aim.....such as when they called Zimmerman "White-Hispanic" when we all know Zimmerman is Jewish....as is his father.

Also Jewish..........

Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook
Jared Lee Loughner of Tucson
Columbine Trench Coat Mafia
Ted Kaczynski
Bernie Madoff
and the man that brought 1920s & 30s Germany style hyperinflation to America today, Ben Bernanke............

..........all from the tribe of blood sacrificers, U.S. tax dollar leeches, and owners of most of American media......and American political prostitutes in D.C. (maplight dot org......if you need to verify).

My statement stands. George was also human. Not many are infallible, but at least we're not Neanderthal.....as that tribe seems to be.

"Hillbilly"s are from the hills of West Virginia and maybe Kentucky. Downtown L.A.........a bit more primitive. At least Hillbilly's speak English, at least a version of it, and don't commit genocide on their own people. Personally, I speak Redneck....fluently, although I graduated high school speaking proper English. (I promptly unlearned it and adopted my Grandfather's much, much more colorful language....and haven't worn starched clothes since.)

(Redneck, the new version just like "gay" doesn't mean happy anymore.....and "niggers" come in all colors these days, not just black, and black if definitely different than "nigger", just ask Chris Rock or his Mom.......... and Redneck by choice, not because I have to be........and I keep current on the search for the Higg's boson, anti-matter, and the updating of "string theory" or "super string theory", Wall Street's various scams and their intribe over-seers, the background of various individuals.....such as Obama's mother having worked for Timothy Geithner's father while he was an investment bankster in China for the criminal Warburg clam from Germany.........and how world Judea declared war on Germany in 1933, well ahead of any hostile acts from Hitler toward them....and well ahead of any hostilities involved in WW2).

So your use of supposedly derogatory terms........will be like calling Ellen Degenerate or Barney Frank "gay". Facts carry much more water........helping one walk upright instead of falling and flopping about seemingly helpless for the lack thereof.

are you talking about secular abstinence?

bgamall4 says

Talmudic Laws of Noahide

FortWayne says

Liberals have different standard for their own. Obama made some racial remarks during his recent partying. Not a cricket was heard from liberals about it.

For the last time, this is not Obama. It is a chair.

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says

The second amendment guarantees Americans the right to carry weaponry at least as powerful as the military's.

Actually, that's correct. The Second Amendment says "the right to bear arms", not guns. Arms is a more general term. It means precisely that the people must have access to all weapons the government has. This made sense in the 18th century, but doesn't in the 21st.

The bottom line is that the Second Amendment isn't in effect today or you could have nukes, biological/chemical weapons, land mines, RPGs, and tanks.

Call it Crazy says

Things are "different" there...

False imprisonment with a deadly weapon is a felony in Nevada. Look it up.

Call it Crazy says

I don't think the same standards are always enforced in hillbilly land..

Enforcement has nothing to do with if a crime was committed or not.

Edit: Other laws likely being broken, not related to the armed traffic roadblocks, that have a high potential to lead to arrest ...

Militia : transporting guns across state lines with intent to commit crime
Militia/Bundy : threats against federal officers
Bundy : contempt of court

... and the roadblocks are just beyond dumb, because those are crimes being committed against local residents. From Carol's (Bundy's wife) blog: "The terror of armed men occupying our land will never be forgotten." Oh, the irony.

Call it Crazy says

Just as predicted..... No evidence or info as requested, just more questions....

Did you find the proof of snopes bias yet?

More to the point than showing depravity on the part of realtors, this shows the dangers of hypermoralistic Midwestern attitudes about sex- it is easier to hide depravity where it is a great embarrassment. I lived in Southeast Kansas while in the military and found as much goes on there as in California; but, in California depravity is flaunted while it id hidden in Oklahoma and Kansas. Yes, those churchgoing girls do, and at the same frequency as less up tight parts of the world.

Call it Crazy says

I'll post it right after you supply answers to all the questions posed to YOU in this thread.... Which, based on your posting history, means I'll never have to supply anything...

OK--let's take a look. Here are the questions that I can find:

Paralithodes says

Is it your hypothesis that regulation is (a) not a factor at all or (b) only an insignificant factor? And on what do you base your hypothesis?

Answered here:

tatupu70 says

My hypothesis is that regulation is a small factor. I base that on the OP's assertion that small business formation has had a "steep drop" since 2006. I think business conditions are a much larger factor than regulations.

Paralithodes says

When did you "show" this?

Answered here:

tatupu70 says

Obviously you didn't read the thread to which I refer. It's not that complicated. If business were starved for capital and that is what is holding back new formation and growth, interest rates wouldn't be near all time lows.

Paralithodes says

If that's the case, what's your issue: that I say it's "significant" and you disagree and think it's not significant?

Answered here:

tatupu70 says

Yes, I think I agree.

Did I miss anything? I believe I've answered all questions. So, time for you to provide the proof you promised.

If realtors were clearly identifiable - say, by being on fire and writhing on the ground - the children would be safe.

Iosef V HydroCabron says

If realtors were clearly identifiable - say, by the fact that they were on fire and writhing on the ground - the children would be safe.

You know what they say:
"You can build a realtor a fire and it will stay warm for a night, but SET a realtor on fire and it will stay warm for the rest of its life!"

Obligatory:

Quigley says

Obama has a proven record of being the spanner in the works of economic recovery, vetoing legislation that would add good jobs and money.

Obama has made exactly 2 vetoes and I bet you can't name what they are without looking them up.

Which specific legislation are you thinking of besides Keystone XL (for which Phase III was approved, btw)? Please be specific on how it would "add good jobs and money"?

I'm with HydroCabron (still one of the best aliases ever) on this one. Idiots who think the president can command our economy are a dime a dozen.

The president with the help of Congress can either create favorable conditions for the economy or the opposite. Obama, Pelosi, Reid have done the opposite.

Taxes and regulations were raised. This hinders GDP growth.

Obamacare will further depress hiring or full time employment. The OMB even has an estimate of how much it will depress GDP growth.

"Share the wealth" Obama told a guy who was self-employed. "You didn't build that" Obama said to employment creators.

"Cash for clunkers" amateur hour in the White House, this was supposed to stimulate the car industry somehow. Lame.

Solyndra, this was doomed before the plans were even drawn up. Green jobs another bunch of baloney. But this didn't really matter in the big picture since we all knew it was bullshit.

Obama wants to sic the EPA on people creating jobs and energy.

But, the reason Obama was a bad executive was obvious, he chose health care as the #1 priority while millions of people were out of work. He used the opportunity to further a political agenda to change health care rather than focus on the actual problem that most Americans were concerned about.

Therefore Obama can take the blame for the lousy 2% GDP growth since he took office. He focused on the wrong issue and so is therefore an idiot.

How can this be when housing market so strong and billions coming in from overseas. Just released the report on the housing market which shows the active listings inventory for Single Family Homes in Marin increased 14% to a season high in the month of April. Sales continue to be strong with the number of sold listings increasing by 28% month-over-month...
http://www.marinhomelistings.com/Communities/Monthly-Market-Report/Marin-Market-Snapshot-APR-30-2014

clambo says

Taxes and regulations were raised. This hinders GDP growth.

Cash for Clunkers was always stupid. As for the rest of the stuff, there are plenty of counterarguments (and cherry-picking quotes without context doesn't count as an argument). Higher taxes on well-off people doesn't have to hinder GDP growth (see Clinton). Some regulations also create jobs (and you can't really name specific ones that have hindered GDP growth, I'm guessing).

clambo says

Solyndra, this was doomed before the plans were even drawn up. Green jobs another bunch of baloney. But this didn't really matter in the big picture since we all knew it was bullshit.

Obama wants to sic the EPA on people creating jobs and energy.

This is utter nonsense. Solyndra was part of a portfolio, and the rest of the portfolio is doing well. But keep saying "Solyndra" to identify yourself as clueless about that.

In addition, green energy jobs are growing quite quickly -- don't know why you'd want to shoot them down if you care about economic growth.

clambo says

he chose health care as the #1 priority while millions of people were out of work. He used the opportunity to further a political agenda to change health care rather than focus on the actual problem that most Americans were concerned about.

You think a lot of Americans don't care about healthcare? I'm pretty sure I can find a lot of evidence to the contrary. Last I checked, *Congress* passed the Affordable Care Act, and Obama played almost no role in its composition (which is something I would criticize -- I think the White House should have taken a larger hand in crafting the legislation). The Obama administration did play a role in implementing it, but that's what the executive branch does, last I checked.

The reality is that presidents have very little control over the course of the world economy and the US economy, and the constitution ensures that. Otherwise, you're asking for what HydroCabron said.

Behzad says

Just released the report on the housing market which shows the active listings inventory for Single Family Homes in Marin increased 14% to a season high in the month of April. Sales continue to be strong with the number of sold listings increasing by 28% month-over-month...

Why would we care about month-over-month numbers? They are useless because used-house sales are seasonal. It's quite obvious that sales and inventory in certain months are typically higher than other months.

Solyndra was dead before they built it and spent $500 million of our money.

The reality is Obama focused on an issue that was secondary rather than help job creators who are small business entrepreneurs.

These people know that their taxes were raised, their paperwork increased, Obamacare raises their regulations and costs.

Obama of course was involved in Obamacare, he ran on it in 2008.

I don't believe that a president can do much to help an economy without congress and the only way to do that is to encourage production.

Regulations, siccing EPA on people, Siccing guys on Gibson Guitar, Obamacare, Cap and tax (defeated by the house republicans), new taxes, fees, car mileage requirements, all combine to depress economic growth.

If Ford and GM decided that they make their best profits on large vehicles, e.g. Ford F-150, why is Obama meddling and saying they need to make small cars? "Why can't GM make a Corolla?"

How about Ford can choose which market segment they want to sell most in? How about freedom to conduct your business the way you want to?

bob2356 says

You are being disingenuous. There are no 100k medical device makers or anywhere even close. I doubt there are very many if any less than 10 million dollar medical device makers. A 90k fee isn't holding anyone back from entering the field.

It is you who is disingenuous, or blind. Aside from any small manufacturers, which do exist at that very level, you fail to acknowledge what impact this can happen on startups... Unless you simply think that any small business (a sole proprietorship with one product, maybe operating part time even) is just not worth the time.... A $90K fee isn't holding anyone back? That's pretty amazing!

bob2356 says

Your point is big corporations use taxes and regulations to restrict competition. Very true. My point is you picked a very bad example where there is a legitimate reason for the fees. Industry should pay for fees for government services needed in order conduct their business. Surely you are not going to say that medical devices should be self regulated and will be safe because of the high levels of civic responsiblity of medical device makers?

You say it's a bad example because you deny that there are any manufacturers operating at $100K per year at all, and are probably none operating under $10M per year. If that were true, or relevant, then you would have a point. Of course, your entire assertion begs another big question: WHY are there only manufacturers operating at $10M or more per year? Certainly the "free market" would not be the only reason given how highly regulated the medical industry is.

But, you are wrong in the first place. There are small companies - startups and long-existing ones - who create smaller devices, etc. The large corporations, with government assistance, haven't killed them all yet. A little bit of Google and you can find plenty of examples of small companies.

Bottom line: The fee was yet another thing added in the last decades, and even at 38% of the full charge, has a significantly greater impact on a startup or small business than it does on a GE Medical. I didn't even address the ACA tax, which is right out of an Ayn Rand novel (taxing revenues, not profits). Regardless of whether one believes is good or bad, it is still indisputably another higher cost.

bob2356 says

Increasing compliance costs affect small business more than large corporations, as do increasing rents, labor costs, material costs, transportation costs, etc. etc etc.. Small business are more nimble and are free from large amounts of organizational overhead. It's all part of the game. Large business have used government to stifle competition since the dawn of time. You haven't discovered anything new here.

It's nothing new.... Therefore no one should bother complaining about it or pointing it out? OK, give your own advice a try when you discuss the "rich," wealth, taxes, etc., on all of the so-called "liberal" positions....

Increasing compliance costs, etc., make small businesses less nimble - THAT is the effect of the game that you say exists. A large business may support (or even help write) legislation that increases its own overhead costs because they know that the smaller competitors simply cannot absorb it, while they can.

Perhaps small business creation, entrepreneurship, etc., is simply not important to many of the posters here... Wonder why... perhaps because they might not be as easy to control...

Call it Crazy says

Nope, don't think so... You posted in #22 above: Summary of the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002

The one I posted was instituted as part of the ACA as an Excise Tax, not a user fee...

Bob was referring to the right one. He dismissed the argument by making the false assertion that there are no small businesses in the medical industry that are ~$100K per year, or even under $10M. If his assertion was correct, which it is, I would be forced to agree with him. Because it is not, he did not refute my example at all. He could continue to argue this particular example all that he wants, but what would be the point since he already acknowledges the very core of the issue.

clambo says

Solyndra was dead before they built it and spent $500 million of our money.

I knew people who work there who would disagree, but the economy did change during the time period. The rest of the portfolio has done quite well, as you still ignore -- Solyndra was one of several businesses in the portfolio. In any case, Solyndra is almost completely irrelevant to why *Obama* did anything because most of the groundwork that resulted in the approval was under Bush. But keep saying Solyndra, you'll keep sounding ignorant.

clambo says

rather than help job creators who are small business entrepreneurs.

More complex than that, actually -- that's just a sound bite that politicians like, but it's more nuanced than that in reality. Small business are also huge job destroyers because they frequently fail.

http://econweb.umd.edu/~haltiwan/size_age_paper_R&R_Aug_16_2011.pdf

clambo says

Siccing guys on Gibson Guitar

Gibson admitted to violating the law. End of story. You are okay with selectively enforcing federal law, I take it?

clambo says

"Why can't GM make a Corolla?"

I don't know if you were making a joke, but GM *did* make a Corolla in Numi. They just called it a Chevy Nova, and then they called it a Geo Prizm (and later a Chevy Prizm).

clambo says

Cap and tax (defeated by the house republicans)

Last I checked, Republicans wanted cap and trade as an alternative to a carbon tax until Democrats said they wanted it.

clambo says

Obamacare

Last I checked, Republicans wanted Obamacare as an alternative to HillaryCare until Democrats said they wanted it. See also, the Heritage Foundation which was for Obamacare before it was against Obamacare. Also, last I checked, *Congress* passed the Affordable Care Act, and the Obama administration had almost no hand in writing it (a strategy which I disagree with).

Note that both of the above items require an act of Congress, not a president.

You can keep saying regulations all you want, but Congress passes laws that allow agencies to make regulations under the authority of those laws. They may not exceed the authority of that law, and if Congress wishes to reverse those regulations than an agency is permitted to make, then Congress can do so. This has nothing to do with presidents regulating the economy through some command structure.

You're not really making a coherent argument here. You're hand-waving at "regulations" basically. The overall magnitude of an act of Congress is far larger than anything a president can do.

bob2356 says

Call it Crazy says

The one I posted was instituted as part of the ACA as an Excise Tax, not a user fee...

Go back further, I talked about ACA excise tax. Affects everyone the same anyway. It's a tax not a regulation.

Does it affect an existing profitable company in the same way that it affects a startup which may not be profitable for several years? By "affects" I mean, is it applied exactly the same: a company would pay the tax on the revenue regardless of profit?
This is a sincere question - not rhetorical - because I don't know the answer.

Interesting commentary by Charles Hugh Smith on this chart and subject:
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogmay14/small-biz5-14.html

"1. Barriers erected by cartels and the government. Cartels prosper by eliminating competition, and the easiest, cheapest way to restrict competition is to influence government to create regulatory barriers that raise the cost to levels no small business can afford. There are dozens of examples of regulations that do little to "protect the public" (the usual rationalization) whose primary intent and effect is to suppress competition."

Robert Sproul says

Cartels prosper by eliminating competition

Good point, a NY taxi license is 500k for one taxi.

"The Obama administration last week released a long-anticipated policy paper with an innocuous title: “Big Data: Seizing Opportunities, Preserving Values.” Valley executives, venture capitalists, and entrepreneurs should read it for insight into why and how big government plans to engage the once-dynamic and lightly regulated high-tech industry. “It is the responsibility of government,” the report declares, “to ensure that transformative technologies are used fairly and employed in all areas where they can achieve public good.” That statement is a portent for increasing collisions between West Coast entrepreneurs and East Coast regulators."

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0509mm.html

"This is in fact the reason why no amount of data mining and statistical analysis will ever settle disputes in the field of economics. Keynesian economists will forever quote historical data from around the Great Depression as evidence of their crisis theories and policy recommendations, just as those who subscribe to monetary explanations of the business cycle (as we “Austrians” do) will forever cite the same or similar data in support of their theories. It is a common complaint that anything can be proven with statistics, and in the field of economic debate this seems to be true to a large degree. (I subscribe to the “Austrian” explanation of economic crises not because it fits the data better but because it fits the principles of economics, the laws of economics that allow us to analyse the cycle in the first place. A detailed analysis of Keynesian theories leads to conflicts and mismatches with some key economic principles. This makes this theory much less convincing.)"