patrick.net

You lazy ass. Why don't you take 2 minutes, like I did, to look it up yourself. This isn't a rant about Democrats - it's REALITY, something you liberals detest.

Look what up ourselves?

You didn't even mention the names of any bills for us to look up.

Yeah, pretty lame "rebuttal". It does not even mention, let alone address, Patrick's original point about national health insurance.

It's funny I always see the "conservative" argument is that business needs all the help it can get from government. Yet if you argue an individual should get a break you are fostering a libtard-socialist-communist welfare state.

Perhaps these businesses allegedly fleeing in droves, couldn't cut the mustard anyhow. If they need a bunch of handouts, handholding, and special breaks to compete against other California businesses, no big loss. The losers will go somewhere else, beg for some more handouts, maybe an industrial park, then in 5 years of failure and a few "reorganizations" they'll move on like locusts to plague some other state even more desperate.

Patricks original point was "Republicans prevent small business formation". My post address's today's reality that Liberal Democrats are the MAIN driving force to increased employer costs, increased regulation, increased litigation, creating further barriers to start up companies and making it costlier to hire additional employees.

In other words, and unless you have your head ** **** ***, its the Democrats that are preventing business formation by their relentless drive to regulate, tax, levy and control every possible aspect of business in California.

Even the San Francisco Examiner acknowledges those facts, hahaha. "Democratic legislators in Sacramento have SPONSORED SO MANY ANTI-BUSINESS BILLS in the current legislative session that they must not be aware that California's unemployment rate is a dreadful 11.8%"

Honest Abe says

Democratic legislators in Sacramento have SPONSORED SO MANY ANTI-BUSINESS BILLS in the current legislative session

For example...

Honest Abe says

Patricks original point was "Republicans prevent small business formation"

That was merely the title you forgot the part that says, "By blocking a national health insurance option for major medical care, Republicans also block small business formation."

Did you even read past the title?

Rather than list grievances you have against Democrats in CA a rebuttal would actual address Patrick's argument.

Even if you were able to irrefutably prove that Democrats are worse for business than Republicans. WARNING: you would actually have to present some unbiased data, not just editorial opinion articles. You would still not be refuting that the Republicans are bad for small business because of their stance on national health care.

Force is the opposite of Freedom. Freedom means people can choose to purchase something, or not. The liberal agenda of "national health care" is to be FORCED upon everyone. Your opinion may be that its voluntary, no one is actually FORCED, you know, kinda like how everyone "voluntarily" pays their income tax, no one is forced (wink, wink).

Blocking a national health insurance "option" is preventing the unconstitutional spread of tyranny. And Patrick makes the phony association that in doing so it blocks small business formation, what a joke. That like saying that stopping smoking is unhealthy because it leads to obesity. I'm sorry but thats false logic.

No doubt, a real public option is something big corporations hate. It would remove their special ability to offer large group insurance plans as an inducement and competitive advantage. The entire idea that health insurance should come from employers is a historical accident particular to the USA.

Vicente says

It would remove their special ability to offer large group insurance plans as an inducement and competitive advantage. The entire idea that health insurance should come from employers is a historical accident particular to the USA.

And it doesn't work Period, other than as a tool to enslave labor and talent.

Thanks for addressing Patrick's argument.

Honest Abe says

Force is the opposite of Freedom.

Hmm... not really I think that suppression or servitude are better antonyms for freedom. Force can be applied to achieve servitude and suppression of the masses, but it can also be used to protect the freedoms of the masses.

Total freedom = anarchy
Total suppression = tyranny

We don't have to choose one or the other, there is a very large gray scale between the extremes.

Honest Abe says

Your opinion may be that its voluntary, no one is actually FORCED, you know, kinda like how everyone "voluntarily" pays their income tax, no one is forced (wink, wink).

Make no mistake everyone is forced to pay taxes. As a result we are "forced" to have police, fire, roads, clean water, etc.

Honest Abe says

Blocking a national health insurance "option" is preventing the unconstitutional spread of tyranny.

I think we disagree on where national health care falls in the spectrum between anarchy and tyranny. That said, while I do support universal health care I am not a fan of the current proposal, or "Obama care" as people like to call it.

Honest Abe says

And Patrick makes the phony association that in doing so it blocks small business formation, what a joke.

Other than a dubious analogy, how is Patrick's association phony? what points of his are incorrect and why?

When Abe started his psot about bills in California hurting busineses, I was certain he was going to list some. When I did not see any, I re-read his rant a 2nd time. Still nothing.

Hmm, seems that at least one organization devoted (ostensibly) to furthering the interests of small businesses would likely disagree:
http://www.smallbusinesscalifornia.org/legislation.htm

Read the list - the vast majority of the bills they support are from democrats. I counted a mere 3 from republicans, in that long list.

He had exact numbers in his OP. Almost like he went through some list and counted them. Where is this list? If you had it open recently it should be trivial to post it or describe how you found the information. If you cannot do this, expect to be dismissed as the troll you surely are (judging by your prior posts, 17 of which were outright lies, 10 of which were possibly honest misunderstandings on your part, or perhaps well crafted lies, and 2 of which were off topic - despite you picking the topic by starting the post. The remaining 4, when read backwards, seemed to be some sort of devil worship).

Honest Abe says

Force is the opposite of Freedom. Freedom means people can choose to purchase something, or not.

I chose not to purchase an army to invade Iraq and Afganistan. FYI. Thanks, republicans, for 8 years of tyranny!

Matt.BayArea says

Read the list - the vast majority of the bills they support are from democrats. I counted a mere 3 from republicans, in that long list.

How novel some data, and a link to the data!

Also FYI: health insurance costs are costing my family's small business far too much in time and effort. It's costly too, but health insurance won't be cheap ....
(until we use regulation or competition from an ethical company or organization of people *cough govt* to prevent the fatcats from getting rich off providing (or rather declining) health care to paying customers.)

Matt.BayArea says

He had exact numbers in his OP. Almost like he went through some list and counted them. Where is this list? If you had it open recently it should be trivial to post it or describe how you found the information.

Hmm... now why would someone, while trying to argue a point, make viewing the sources of said argument difficult.

Hmmm... I wonder...

Honest Abe says

Patrick, apparently you are uneducated or ignorant of the facts.

Proof by intimidation is the weakest form of debate.

Republicans argue that all regulations are bad. Democrats argue that the regulations are necessary. The truth is that each regulation must be evaluated individually.

A regulation might be bad for a business. It might hurt some businesses but help others. It might hurt the individual business, but help all businesses in the field by avoiding situations like The Tragedy of the Commons. A business could be better off with the regulation applying to all businesses including itself even though the regulation imposes a cost on the business.

I have never heard anyone put forth a scientific analysis of how regulations affect businesses and economies both in positive and negative ways. Till such an analysis is done, everything said about regulations is largely b.s.

I will say that there are some ways that companies love the government to interfere in markets and abandon "laissez faire". Companies love patents and copyrights, which are certainly forms of regulation. Many economists have been recently proposing that our patent system does more harm than good, and they site examples like Google buying out Motorola for its patents as an example. Patents, they say, have become weapons.

So it seems that regulations are like drugs. Some are considered great and other are treated like the bane of society, and it's often arbitrary on which side a particular one falls.

OK, since I was able to find them all, and you were incapable of finding any, here is one of many: AB 350.

Assembly Bill 350 says that any time a service provider gets a new contract, they will be FORCED (darn, there's that pesky word again, almost always associated with some screwy liberal Democratic proposal), they would be forced to hire the prior contractors employees. Say what ?

Liberal Democrats = nosey, pushy, busy bodies, forcing business owners to do what THEY want. Liberals have no comprehension of cause and effect. In other words they operate in a vacuum completely unaware of the unintended consequences they are creating. Then, of course, its the tea party's fault, or Bush's fault , or Reagan's fault - never as a result of the destructive policies and laws which Liberal Democrats themselves created and FORCED upon others.

Honest Abe says

OK, since I was able to find them all, and you were incapable of finding any, here is one of many: AB 350.

Assembly Bill 350 says that any time a service provider gets a new contract, they will be FORCED (darn, there's that pesky word again, almost always associated with some screwy liberal Democratic proposal), they would be forced to hire the prior contractors employees. Say what ?

Liberal Democrats = nosey, pushy, busy bodies, forcing business owners to do what THEY want. Liberals have no comprehension of cause and effect. In other words they operate in a vacuum completely unaware of the unintended consequences they are creating. Then, of course, its the tea party's fault, or Bush's fault , or Reagan's fault - never as a result of the destructive policies and laws which Liberal Democrats themselves created and FORCED upon others.

And there you have it.

Legislation by Democrats supported by California Small Businesses (total 24):
AB 10, AB 11, AB 15, AB 29, AB 150, AB 153, AB 155, AB 211, AB 231, AB 232, AB 335, AB 361, AB 1379, AB 67, SB 116, SB 366, SB 469, SB 560, SB 688, SB 823, SB 826, SB 863, SB 875 & SB 888

By Republicans (total 3):
AB 535, AB 541 & AB 135

Yes, I beginning to understand how you think that the Democrats are out to destroy business in California and the Republicans are here to save it.
Honest Abe says

And there you have it.

Honest Abe says

OK, since I was able to find them all, and you were incapable of finding any, here is one of many: AB 350.

So remind me again how this bill has anything at all to do with the Republicans efforts to screw over small business by trying to prevent national health care?

Also more specifically, what in this bill demonstrates that Patrick's association of health care to republicans being bad for small business is phony, and that his points are incorrect?

Takaful Keluarga says

I was wondering if you knew where I could get a captcha plugin for my comment form?

Recaptcha

The Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (AB 350) is the best bill you can point to Honest Abe? Really? I'm cracking up.

HousingWatcher says

The Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (AB 350) is the best bill you can point to Honest Abe? Really? I'm cracking up.

Agreed. This is the best example you could find? Let's also remember that bills are not law.

Honest Abe says

Of the most recent job killing bills, seven are costly workplace mandates, 10 are economic development barriers, three are employee benefit mandates, four are new, expensive regulatory burdens and five contain inflated liability risks - again ALL sponsored by Democrats. Patrick, I think you are in denial of reality.

Again, name them. If you are so certain about these numbers, name them right now.

I think Honest Abe has been "cratered" in this argument.

Nomograph says

"Force is the opposite of Freedom. Freedom means people can choose to follow something,or not. The conservative agenda of "the U.S. Constitution" is FORCED upon everyone."

Why isn't FORCING the U.S. Constitution on everyone not tyranny, Abe? According to you, it's WORSE than tyranny; the U.S. Constitution is GENERATIONAL TYRANNY!

Aren't we also fighting two wars right now forcing freedom on people?

American in Japan says

I think Honest Abe has been "cratered" in this argument.

The funny thing is that he is probably thinking the exact opposite.

Dan8267 says

Republicans argue that all regulations are bad.

Republicans make no such argument.

Paralithodes says

Dan8267 says

Republicans argue that all regulations are bad.

Republicans make no such argument.

Yeah, there are plenty of things that Republicans want to regulate.

I prefer to be attended by elderly janitors. The older ones move slowly but weather constant beratings better. Just be sure to keep a few spares around so when one gives up the ghost, you can quickly dispatch another to dispose of the carcass.

Paralithodes says

Dan8267 says

Republicans argue that all regulations are bad.

Republicans make no such argument.

Then I must have been misinformed by millions of hours of Fox news.

The only regulations that Republicans support are those that tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Dan8267 says

Then I must have been misinformed by millions of hours of Fox news.

You, and everyone else watching FOX "news".

leoj707 says

Dan8267 says

Then I must have been misinformed by millions of hours of Fox news.

You, and everyone else watching FOX "news".

In my defense, I get most of my Fox news from The Daily Show ripping on it. Although, I will watch Peter Schiff when he's a guest. He keeps a list of videos with his appearances on his website.

HousingWatcher says

The Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (AB 350) is the best bill you can point to Honest Abe? Really? I'm cracking up.

Somebody got served.

pkowen says

HousingWatcher says

The Displaced Janitor Opportunity Act (AB 350) is the best bill you can point to Honest Abe? Really? I'm cracking up.

Somebody got served.

Not only served, but the area will be professionally cleaned.

Let's take a look at the Displaced Janiotr Opportunity Act, shall we?

It applies to janitorial companies that employ 25 or more janitors. Senate Bill (SB) 20 requires janitorial contractors and subcontractors that secure a new building service contract to continue employing the janitors of the former contractor or subcontractor for at least 60 days. At the end of the 60 days, the new contractor is required to provide a written evaluation of each janitor's job performance and to continue employing janitors whose performance has been satisfactory.

I can see how this would be a small business killer. I imagine that, before this bill, a company could underbid a current contractor and hire all new workers at minimum wage when they're awarded the contract. Or, they could "sell" (transfer ownership) and do the same thing.

How sad it is that a new company would have to continue to pay workers a living wage. It's more important to protect the company than the workers, because the owners' lives are worth more than the workers.

Much like the lawsuit that a woman filed against McDonald's, this issue is misunderstood and used as an example of dumb legislation. But, like the woman who received severe burns requiring surgical intervention even tho McDonald's was repeatedly warned that the coffee was too hot to hold in the cup which led to her dropping the coffee in her lap, there's more to this story. It protects people whose jobs were satisfactory, yet lost anyway because someone wanted to save a buck.

But then abeabe & shrek and their buddies would bitch that these workers were drawing unemployment benefits, food stamps, welfare, or whatever program... Damn janitors ought to go get a fucking job.

Oh, that's right - they have one because there's a law protecting them.

Listen canine breath, the purpose of workers is to work. The purpose of a boss is to collect all the money and boss around the workers. The purpose of the owner is to take nearly all the money from the boss and live a privileged life free from mortal concerns.

You Chartists can pass your stupid laws and rules, and people like me will: ignore them, buy some politicians to change it, or have one of our blackmailed attorneys find a loophole to exploit. In the end, you just waste a bunch of time that you could be using instead to learn how to make a proper gin martini.

Now that would be innovation, teaching my dog to make a proper gin martini.