Question for those of you who support the reelection of Barack Obama.... on the Peoria.com Forums - Page 3

the government is responsible for creating a climate in which private citizens can create jobs. When John Q. Entrepreneur is taxed out the wazoo (or penalized, depending on what day it is) for health care if he employs more than 50 employees, what's the incentive to hire? If I'm comfortable in my small business with 47 employees, I'm definitely NOT expanding. If I'm comfortable with 53 employees, I'd seriously consider terminating four of them.

Government created that climate.

Do we even need to discuss the draconian regulations placed on business by government and how that affects employment?

JnJ, how much control does the POTUS have over a WORLDWIDE recession? Doesn't matter who currently sits at the throne...Democrat, Republican. It doesn't matter. The POTUS has no control of Greece's financial stability, or Italy or Spain or any other country, for that matter.

Wall Street is who you should directing your question at. They were the ones artificially inflating the economy for years, and getting filthy stinking rich as a result. They were the ones loaning money to bad bets. They were the ones who were too big to fail, but did anyway.

The market to this day is way over-valued. You think we learned our lesson? Highly unlikely.

The burden of healthcare was being felt by employers long before the new healthcare law went into effect. Why it is an employer's responsibility to find, compare, decide, administer, and pay for HEALTH CARE, is beyond my comprehension. Repeal Obama care, if you wish, but that burden still lies with employers.

I never fully understood the entire "taxed out the wazoo" argument. The entire point of any business is to maximize profit. Let's say that you employ X workers and hire Y more workers to make an extra $100 in profit per day. Even if those profits are taxed at something like 75%, your company is still increasing profit by $25 a day. Considering $25 with X+Y workers < $0 with X workers, it still makes financial sense to expand and hire. If you're not hiring those Y workers because $25 < $100, that's just a mix of faulty logic, bad math, and greed.

In the case of the 50-worker Obamacare threshold, that's up to each individual manager to figure out where the profit margin lies. However, there's more untangable factors at play as well -- if I worked for a 53-worker company who would rather lay off 4 co-workers than spring for my health insurance, that doesn't exactly inspire a lot of positive morale in the workplace.

Let's not forget that, while businesses exist to make profit, there's more to life than running a business and making money. Most "draconian" regulations are there to control the hidden costs that don't make it into the bottom-line profit calculation because they can't be quantified into dollars and cents. What are the costs of the negative impacts to the environment due to unregulated emissions and discharges? How much is a worker's finger worth in an unsafe work environment? How many dollars of damage to the road does an overloaded semi cost?

The government is responsible for creating a climate conducive to commerce -- for producers, workers, and consumers, not just for the producers.

* This message has been revised.

@1ITGuy:
HEY! I resent that!

@1ITGuy:

Is that a trick question?

"Why it is an employer's responsibility to find, compare, decide, administer, and pay for HEALTH CARE, is beyond my comprehension."

It is a matter of history. Prior to WWII, employer provided health care was not common or expected. During World War II and shortly afterward, labor was in very short supply. Wages were frozen by law due to the war. So in order for employers to recruit and retain employees, they turned to creative ways that were not covered by the wartime regulations. What turned out to be the most popular and enduring was offering health insurance. Once the economy started shifting away from wartime production, these benefits continued to be used to lure returning veterans. These benefits eventually became part of union contracts. By 1958 some 75% of the workforce had some form of employer provided health care. Baby boomers grew up in a world where insurance was provided by employers.

After the war the public was overwhelmingly supportive of public health care. Big business and unions found the benefits too useful in their business practices, so they opposed and prevailed in defeating public health care.

I understand how it became common practice but I don't think that is how it should be going forward.