"Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!"

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

Social Security is the biggest Ponzi scheme ever perpetrated on the American people. Well, those under 40 will be paying the price. Not I :-)

Part III

I may have a solution also for some of the imported oil we seem so unable to do without. A lot of this oil is used to fire up electric generating plants across the country. That is a lot of oil.

About 1/3 of all American adults are obese. That means somewhere around 20-75 million adults walking around obese. I'm not advocating sacrificing them, but perhaps when they pass away we can boil their carcasses much as they used to render whale meat for the fat content. Oil floats to the top to be easily skimmed off for fuel. We could do this with fat people's carcasses and use the oil to fire up electrical plants. That may save millions spent for imported oil, and would go a long way towards further reducing the deficit.

Part II

I also have a very efficient and cost effective way to decrease the military budget yet not decrease or maybe if we are lucky, even increase the effectiveness of our long range weapons. A second benefit would be to streamline the costs that burden Medicare and health care costs in general in this country.

I think all men and women over the age of 66 should be drafted, no exceptons granted, except of course for the decreased level of danger peace time may grace on the fortunate ones. Notice how this precise age eliminates the payments for SS that this group would have just begun to be qualified for. This manditory military service would be for a special division dedicated to piloting all current forms of self guided missle systems. Since their age precludes any significant loss of life's pleasures and accomplishments, these soldiers can sacrafice their lives to a much needed and honorable cause. Cruise missles cost about a million dollars each, and a live pilot brings smarter and better adaptability if the strike dynamics should change. Regardless they can guide the weapon directly onto targets and even make changes seconds before a strike actually hits its target. We can compensate the families of these heroic soldiers with a significant reward if the soldier hit his target perfectly.

Do you plan to send adults on welfare to orphanages too? And who will pay the cost of the orphanages? Are you proposing to pay the cost of all the orphanages all by your generous self?

Please learn to engage mind before opening mouth and remember that a closed mouth gathers no feet.

Well, this is a new one. I knew that the Tea Party wanted to take the country back, but at worst, I figured they meant back to 1932 before the New Deal. Now we get a proposal to return to the nineteenth century. You simply don't get that society today is not structured for the kind of solutions you propose. I never realized how out of touch you were with the vast majority of America. You are the perfect example of the kind of leader who will eventually destroy what remains of the Republican Party. As I recall, the last time the leading conservative Party died in America (the Whigs) it took almost a decade for their replacement (the Republicans) to form and become credible. During that interim period, most conservatives found a home in what was called the No-Nothing Party. It looks like history is repeating itself.

Or was that just a modest proposal, Mr Swift?

I think anyone on welfare for more than 6 months should be eliminated from circulation. Within 6 months 90% of the entitlement problem would then be taken care of. The kids can go the orphanage route, and within one generation the problem is fixed. Who else after seeing what happened to these long termer's would try and collect welfare for that long? I think I should run for president.

You even find ways to go after Warren Buffet, I see. As I understand it, he is an old man, I think he has cancer, he is rich beyond belief and even if Berkshire-Hathaway stock dropped by 50 % he would still be rich beyond belief. I also believe he is giving the bulk, if not all, of his wealth to charity. But even your way, what you are saying is that there are many people like Warren Buffet who would benefit from a rise in taxes for the elite rich.

To the other poster, I have been saying for ages that $500K or even a million is an acceptable compromise. I could make arguments about those in high cost areas having made a choice and if $4000 on each $100,000 over $250K makes that much of a different, it suggests they bought in way above their means. For those in high cost areas in general, salaries are usually higher there to compensate. But, as I said, the higher levels would still be acceptable. To me what is more important is to remove the tax preference for capital gains for uber-income people, especially those who get a large percentage of their income from such investments. There are still many people like Mitt Romney who pay only around 15 % because so much of their income is long term capital gains.

Personally I love watching this republican trying to justify a party that is dying as we watch. It's pretty humorous!

I agree. we should try Mongolian Chinese Buffet - Warren, MI

Warren Buffet has stated he believes that the tax rate should go up on the rich, but thinks the rate should apply only to those above $500K a year or even higher. I agree with the $500K cutoff as $250K for a family in pricier neighborhoods is not rich.

But if you think about it, he knows this will leave more money in the economy to prop up Wall Street as smaller cuts to government spending can be endured, helping to boost spending. And he has a huge interest in keeping stock values up because of his Bershire investments. I do not believe he sincerly believes increasing taxes will not effect employment negatively, but like I said he has a huge dog in the fight in terms of equities values.

Yeah, whoever entered this thread should know better. This thread was long occupied by the crazy siemens hating lady again, who keep replying to her own post and arguing with herself.

Just have some holiday spirit, enjoy the one woman show.

Nope. This is like any other website. Enter at your own risk. You know the rules !!

Could you at least name your room appropriately or put out a "do not disturb" sign?

In case you haven't noticed, we already have one, thank you. It's a special room that isn't for everyone's taste. Fortunately for you, attendance in OUR room is not mandatory.

Could you guys get a room?!

Once again, you miss the point. You simply put faith into someone who you say shares your 'philosophy'. One would think that the 'philosophy' would be based on something ... some facts, some data. But you and the Republicans refuse or simply can't come up with any data or facts to support your philiosophy; you simply state you know you are right. You say you don't like what 'liberals' want to do, but you won't say what you want to do. You criticize Obama for not achieving all he set out to do (never mind the FACT that he tried to do much more but was blocked at every turn by a minority in the Senate. This anti-democratic group refuses to even allow many issues to come up for a vote and yet they maintain they are the party of 'true' America who support freedom and democracy. Sorry, but actions speak louder than words. Since you won't use facts, data, or history to support your philosophy and won't make any specific proposals to ensure an healthy economic future for America, I can only conclude that you are just filled with anger, fear, and hot air.

SO STOP ALL THE CRITICISM. STOP THE UNFOUNDED DIRE PREDICTIONS OF THE FUTURE. STOP THE CATEGORIZATION AND LABELS. STOP SAYING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT AND TELL US WHAT YOU DO WANT. MAKE A PROPOSAL WITH SOME DETAILS AND EXPLAIN HOW YOUR IDEAS WILL WORK IN PRACTICE. MAYBE THEN YOU WILL HAVE SOME CREDIBILITY. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE ZERO.

You simply don't seem to understand that simpy being against things and not having any ideas of your own is not the basis for an adult coversation about anything. You sound like a sports fan whose team is doing very poorly. You complain about the players, the managers and coaches, and the owners. You know everything that isn't working for your team. Yet, you don't make a single suggestion as to how to fix it. You don't suggest any trades; you don't suggest and improvement in player training, or anything else. You are like the little kid during the 'terrible twos' that just stomps his feet and says no to everything. It is little wonder that the Republican party in which you believe is spiraling itself into oblivion. If I were really a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, I would welcome a new political order consisting solely of radical leftists (relatively speaking), liberals and moderates, and a tiny minority, off in the corner, called The Party Formerly Knows as Republicans. How do you expect a polical party to survive with no idea and just a vague agenda of low taxes, no government programs whatsoever other than an excessively large military, and a completely nauseating, anti-democratic social agenda. I don't know about you, but I for one do not want Big Brother Republicans in my bedroom.

"I suspect you don't take in what a professional sports person makes."

As I said, One should be paid big bucks if they are able to do a job no one else can do, or no one else wants to do.

Could you guys exchange phone numbers or Emails?

"Obama did present a plan, even though you don't like it"

Here we go again, we just see the world differently. What the difference is between you and I are the perceptions of what is and what isn't. You like data and studies and charts and while they obviously have merit, I believe that one can make raw data lie and you believe data you collect as the god given word. 2+2 is simple enough that I cannot argue with the correct answer, but economics and business are not so clear cut. It depends alot on how the data is collected, the interpretation and the accuracy of the method used. I know you don't accept this because you throw me details and data all the time but they don't agree with how I interpret them. I'll try and give an example that you will agree with. Let us take Amazon, Siemens, Exxon and Proctor& Gamble. You get your financial advisor and I'll get mine. The corporate ledger sheets are made availible to all since they are all publicly traded companies. Now lets just say that all other forms of news/ info will be exactly the same for both of our advisors so that it cannot be argued that information was different for both guys. Now we ask both to order these widely divergent companies as to the best long term investments from best to worse. Do you think the order will be exactly the same for both? After all, since the data is the same, the # crunching should clearly reveal who is better than the next, and the next, etc. I would guarrantee the order will be different for both. It is the same for complex economic and political policies. That is why I would rather trust someone whose basic ideology is as close to mine as possible, as the details scripted in a campaign are just outlines, not bankable details. As proof, Obama stated much the first time around that never came to pass either because of congress or unpredictable results from policies actually put in place or world events. Remember the "I will.....; shut down Guantanamo immediately; if my stimulus package is passed unemplyment will be below 6% before my first term is over; I will pass comprehensive Immigration reform; the war in Iraq will end in the first year of my term; I will keep gas prices low, unlike the oil linked president Bush; I will decrease the federal deficit; I will reach out to both sides and pass comprehensive health care reform and it will be posted on the internet"; etc, etc.
I am not blaiming him for not getting all this done, I am just pointing out how little specifics mean on the campaign trail. Further, you want the specifics laid out tp reduce federal spending, but we know a lot cannot be passed thru congress, so things will have to go as things develope......look at the fiscal cliff negotiations. No one knows even now what the specifics will be. Further the actual details for spending cuts are nothing but
bad news. Just how is a candidate going to win by specifying what really needs to be done? It is all ugly if you are to be honest. I agree, Obama's stuff sounded much better than Mitt's vague responses, and that is why I know Obama was full of crap. Without hurtful cuts, the borrowing has to be greater.......that's why he has a huge deficit!!!! You call it deception on Mitt's part, and I call it a rather poor attempt at not clearly lying in order to give people the rosiest promises possible. You simply want yours today and want to pass the buck down to your grandkids. That kind of thinking scares me big time.

AS I have said many times, I share most of your concerns for future generations. To start, though, let's get one thing straight. If Mitt had won and the Republicans had won two more Senate seats than they did, they would not have been able to repeal squat without getting past a Democratic filibuster. That's just reality. I also see no point in discussion all of your dire predictions of what will be. I can discuss what is, I can discuss the past as it relates to the present and I can suggest several courses of action that I believe I can defend on how to ensure the future for our children and future generations. I have no plan that controls what goes on in other countries. Countries like China, India, Indonesia will continue to grow regardless of what we do here. They will develop their own middle class and as this happens, whether we like it or not, the overall wealth in the world will become distributed among more and more people. What bothers me about your position is that you say you want to repeal ACA, but no one can say what, if anything, they will replace it with. You say you want to cut the spending in Washington, but no one in your party can list enough cuts to make a big enough dent in the budget, you say you want to lower tax rates even more, but won't say where you will make up the difference. You are basically asking the American people to trust the Republicans on faith alone. All I heard last fall from Mitt was, elect me and once I'm in office I will figure out which cuts to make; elect me and I will balance tax rate cuts with elimination of preferences and, once again, I'll figure it all out after I'm in office. And Obama did present a plan, even though you don't like it. At least he gave the American people something to judge him on. And along with all of this vagueness and numbers that just don't add up, electing the Republicans would have brought into power a group of people who are hell bent on turning the United States into the most socially repressive nation in the developed world. And whether you like it or not, you can't separate the fiscal and social conservatives any more.

So I really don't know where to go from here. I know some of the things you're against. I suspect you'd like to see OSHA and the EPA close along with many other government services. I don't know how you propose to deal with any negative consequences of such closing, so there isn't much to discuss on regulation. The same can be said on taxes. I've presented a number of ideas, all of which you say either won't work or will ruin America somehow, despite no real evidence. All I've heard from you is that you want the Bush tax cuts retained for all, you may want even lower tax rates, and I have heard zero on what major things you will cut to start to bring the budget back into balance. It's like trying to catch the wind.

"As for the minimum wage, I could put the shoe on the other foot and talk about employers feeling entitled to have labor for the lowest possible wages (the obvious extreme is slavery"

No offense, really...... I am serious here and not trying to be sarcastic, you are fully in that entitlement liberal mode and cannot see the forrest thru the trees. And I am with you on the sympathy for the young ones graduating today, they indeed do have it much tougher. But that is why I scream here and vent because I care too. In fact I care about this subject more than any other concerning our countries future......we just see things from a different perspective. The kind of tough economy the kids are facing today is potentially nothing compared to what faces kids who have decades left before they graduate from college. That is why it disturbs me so much that we have re-elected a president who's own administration estimates are that deficits will run on average a trillion a year till the end of his second term. And the reality is that it will obviously be much worse. Do we not owe it to the kids to shoulder most of the hard times within our generation and not pass on enormous burdens to the far off future for them to pay off? Yes, it will hurt, but it was our generation (yes, including Bush and his wars) who f&*^%$'k'd up badly. At the very least, Mitt would have generated less debt simply by abolishing Obamacare. Obviously some kids would be punished by this if Mitt was elected, so maybe we could have special entitlements just for kids below 18 or so for the immediate future untill things can be further streamlined for costs and care. But I'm sorry, adults who cannot fend for themselves should have to work for any real benefits because generational transfer of entitlements means kids in future generations get stolen from before they are even born. All of this is worse case senario stuff, I agree, but that is how a conservative looks at things because that is how we are defined, and why we seem perpetually better prepared than liberals for life's difficulties.

As for my employee facilities example, I will disagree and say it fits right in w/ this discussion by the very nature that they are not government regulated. You see, free market forces will push us in the right direction on these issues because we become less competitive in the labor market. All non essential aspects of business regulations are better off no involving government; it is always cheaper and more efficient this way.

And as for the min. wage, low paying jobs being equated to slavery is the typical slippery slope that liberals cannot define correctly. If a slave has the freedom to leave, HE WILL LEAVE and seek a better life. The last time I checked, labor regulations in the US never allowed one to pay $0.05 an hour while chaining the emplyee to the job.

You guys realy need to actually run a business to get a real world education. I will assure you from direct experience that advertizing a job for $0.99 an hour (if this was allowed) would get you zero takers and therefore ZERO VICTIMS. There is no need to protect the public from $0.99 an hour jobs even if there was no min. wage regulation........no one would accept the job in this country. Market rates being paid for appropriate job positions will direct employees to better educate/ train themselves
for the necessary jobs or they will not make it. And if an able bodied/ minded person cannot cut it in the job market, that is his lot in life to work out for himself.

What makes you think I don't know about technology or the course of study required for different disciplines. For some things, calculus is essential. For others various sciences are necessary, not all of which depend on calculus to any great extent. The only derivative I can remember being involved with after my last calculus final was a part of my investment portfolio.

There are lots of courses that get taken in college that wind up as useless information. Even English majors have a value in the technological world. Just read a variety of instructions that come with all of today's modern electronics and you will understand the value of someone who can write a simple, understandable declarative sentence.

As for your college experience at Commie University, I fully oppose the idea of biased education in a general class. Teach the good and bad of each system (none that I know of is perfect). Make more biased classes available too, but identify them as such. Based on some of the statements made during the recent election, and the number of people I have met who accept some of the wildest nonsense on both sides, it seems that we need more and not less education in history, government, economics, etc. The easiest way for Americans to give up control of their government is to be uniformed and ignorant and disinterested when it comes time for them to choose their leaders.

Finally, as a cheerleader for the free enterprise system, I would you would be more than happy to let market forces decide the value of a particular set of knowledge or skill. I don't know how much yor business makes or what you are worth, but I would suprised if you are in a league with a Mick Jagger or Justin Beiber let alone many other lesser known names. I suspect you don't take in what a professional sports person makes. And I suspect that none of those people ever needed to learn about calculus (although sound engineers or those freaks who use high powered aerodynamics to prove that a baseball can curve when thrown). There is more to life than the latest and greatest tech toy.

Fair wage; I have an idea, why not pay everybody $50/hr. That way everybody makes $100K + a year and everybody is rich ... simple.

Or as LBJ would say THE GREAT SOCIETY ! As he sent 550,000 young men to Viet-Nam

"How in the world will learning calculus change someone's world? I took 3 semesters of it in college along with plenty of liberal arts course as well as the many required to complete my degree in science. And I gotta tell you that if there were ever 3 wasted courses, they were calculus."

All of these high tech wonders that we enjoy have various upper levels of math behind them. If you had the background that you say you have, you would know it.

I took a few required Liberal Arts courses and all they pushed was Marxism and how bad capitalism was. The reason I suggest the liberal arts students take a semester or two was to round their education. Like mine was rounded.

Sounds like your BS is BS.

new matter discovered at cern color-glass condensate.

Why are costs associated with bribing customers considered to be acceptable, whereas paying workers a fair wage is not?

Examples of bribing customers include, but are not limited to:

Buying the gifts
Giving them so-called freebies
Taking them out to lunch or dinner
Buying them alcohol (to loosen the up, perhaps?)
Procuring sexual favors
Giving cash 'rebates' under the table

Add to that the 'special rewards' that are given to select employees such as free trips (take your spouse if you'd like), extravegant sales meetings in sun-n-fun locations that are nowhere near headquarters, etc.

All of the above are considered costs of doing business. It doesn't seem to matter to companies because they can just pass the costs onto consumers. And on top of it all, many of these so-called 'necessary' expenses are tax deductible.

No one here has said that unions are pure and clean and 100 % good. Quite to the contrary, even union supporters will acknowledge that some are corrupt, some leaders live as high off the hog as big time corporate CEOs, and some are more in bed with management than they are with their own members. Yes, all of this is wrong, but if you want to have a decent discussion of 'unnecessary' expenses (like paying workers), then you have to talk about it all including all the money companies waste at their own discretion. One of the worst examples would have been the Bayer Advia IMS. Bayer spent close to a billion dollars on that turkey and knew all along that it was never going to fly. (Anyone who knows Arthur Carlson knows that turkeys can't fly). So if you want to start throwing darts randomly, expect to have some thrown back at Amerian businessmen.

Once again, you seem to miss the point that this is not a black and white situation. There is plenty of guilt for all to share.

"Worked hard in college? No these are the students who took the easy "Liberal Arts" route in school. Funny how a science student has to take some Liberal Art classes to make them more "well rounded" but; the Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists."

Statements like the above show just how out of contact with reality you are and how much you are biased.

How in the world will learning calculus change someone's world? I took 3 semesters of it in college along with plenty of liberal arts course as well as the many required to complete my degree in science. And I gotta tell you that if there were ever 3 wasted courses, they were calculus.

The more you post here, the more it becomes obvious how small your world it and how much your life is governed by your own internally generated ideas and biases and how little contact with the real world, outside of your business, you really have. No wonder facts and data scare you so much.

Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists.

Now that is an idea!

A persons pay should be simply based on:

If you can do something that no one else wants to do, or can do, then your pay should be high. But if you have 100s of people who can do that job, then the pay should be low.

What you want does not equate to what your value is to an employer.

Why is it that union heavy privately owned companies are the ones going broke and asking for bailouts? Simple, they had to add the labor cost to their products, and eventually priced themselves out of the market.

MicroSoft, IBM, Apple, and other high tech companies are all non-union, and are not asking for bailouts

Now if there is not competition, like fire, police, teachers, power companies, then one is held hostage by the unions.

50 years ago a company would make widgets at $$ and add 5% on and tell the customer this is what it costs. Times have changed, customer now says I am willing to pay $ for your widget or I will go elsewhere. So you better figure out how to make that widget for $ and still make a profit. Or go out of business.

Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me.

Nothing wrong with it. You, as an employer, are totally free to take this approach in entering into contracts with you employees. Just as you are free to come to me, as a partial owner of Microsoft, and offer to pay $2 for 1000 copies of Windows. I, as a partial owner of Microsoft, would inform you that I employ an agent to handle those negotiations for me, rather than trying to gather all the other owners together and vote on each individual contract we as owners of a company, might enter into. Our agent would probably reject your offer, as you cannot force us to enter into a contract to sell you Windows at that price. As an employer, you might find that your employees have chosen to have an agent handle their employment contracts. If that agent happens to be a union representative, there is nothing, other than existing contracts you may have entered into in the past, that forces you to negotiate with them.

"Just look around you at all of the kids who went to college, worked hard, and expected to find a decent job upon graduation only to find themselves working checkout at Wal-Mart or Target. "

Worked hard in college? No these are the students who took the easy "Liberal Arts" route in school. Funny how a science student has to take some Liberal Art classes to make them more "well rounded" but; the Liberal art students are not required to take a semester or two of calculus. That I am sure would change their view of engineers and scientists.

I now understand your 'facilities' issue. It is not a government regulation issue so it is irrelevant to your complaint about government interference and regulation.

As for the minimum wage, I could put the shoe on the other foot and talk about employers feeling entitled to have labor for the lowest possible wages (the obvious extreme is slavery, indentured servitude, etc.) There are always two sides to every issue. As for young people having 'attitude' when it comes to working, I find it difficult to blame the government for this one; if anything I blame parents and a pervasive entertainment industry that do far more to foster a culture of ease, comfort, getting around the system, etc. .... anything but glorifying the positive aspects of self-motivation, hard work, etc. I could also make a few esoteric points about the motivation issue and on this point, I would simply submit that going from rags to riches was alot easier 100 years ago than it is now. How motivated can one get if they believe they will never get their heads above water? Just look around you at all of the kids who went to college, worked hard, and expected to find a decent job upon graduation only to find themselves working checkout at Wal-Mart or Target. This one is a very complex issue and cannot be simplified by saying it is all the fault of the government. It is far more of a socialogical than a political problem.

"Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me."

You, like so many republicans, are amazingly out of touch with what is going on in our country. There is a very large number of employed (and unemployed) that would think they've died and gone to heaven if they were paid $20/hr. They are toiling at near minimum wage and trying to raise a family and pay bills.
Thanks for your input though, it just makes the rest of us realize more and more why your party will be a thing of the past soon. And we will not look back at you with fond memories. Widespread unemployment, near ruin of the financial system, an unfunded war...
Thanks for the memories!

If you don't want a dead end career, consider being a mortician.

Employees want lockers, upgraded restrooms, break rooms w/ appliances, parties, bonuses, birthday cake celebrations, and lots of other perks. Not required by regulations mind you except for the bathrooms, but you can see how much stuff we have to deal with and it all takes from the bottom line. Owner's dont have to do most of this stuff, but we all learn morale takes a dive when comparisons to other peoples job perks brings up shortcomings and discontent follows. We all soon learn this, so market forces force business owners in the right direction w/o government agencies/ policies for everythnig like this. Obviously some things must be inforced to lift safety levels up to minimums, but all non essential stuff should be self regulated as much as possible. If you don't like the job, you don't have to work there in this country......we are a free nation, ya know. Even min. wage regs are not really such a great idea and it's not for the reasons you suspect. High min. wage limits allow so many less ambitious youngsters to feel entitled to a livable wage for flipping burgers. A market rate wage for fipping burgers would quickly get these young folk to seek better paying jobs; I know because I used to fip burgers when the min. wage was really pathetic even coonsidering the time frame. It didn't take me long to figure out I was wasting my time doing this. Todays min wage fools kids into thinking they are working hard and once again, it is the rich, mean owners of the business that is "cheating" them of a decent livelihood. This is just preposterous if one is flipping burgers. There is no way one should even begin to think of a life in the real world with a career as a fast food cook.....unless you own the joint of course. You see, we who have run businesses see things in a far different light than the kid who thinks working at Wendy's should allow him to have his own apartment, a car, and a girlfriend to spend money on. We have educated too well a bunch of citizens that expect too much from a world that is nearly evil in it's competitiveness. The rest of the world is fighting a serious fight while we flip burgers and expect to live better than the Chinaman. Just where do you think we will end up with all this entitlement mentality and liberal empathy?

PS: Note that I didn't have to google anything for that one and I didn't bother you with much in the way of data and facts.

Note also the well organized and thoughtful response. I am not blind to the impact of regulations. As one of your old whipping boys used to say: I feel your pain. The difference is that I don't have sex in my office!

Handicapped parking, wheelchair acessability: I agree that each employer should be allowed to deal with the special needs of employees on a case by case basis. This would extend beyond the two special needs issues you cite.

fire escape route planning, regional industrial codes, fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escape equipment, city codes for exterior decor/ signs, energy efficient lighting: These are often local issues. In many cases regulations were instituted on a completely non-political basis. See below for any that originate in Washington.

Osha, epa: In many cases, regulations need to be scaled. Smaller companies should not have to document and report on issues to the extent that large companies do. The potential impact of violating a regulation should be evaluated and only those areas where risk is high should be monitored. I certainly would not want to go back to the pre-EPA and pre-OSHA days when companies could dump anything and everything pretty much anywhere they wanted and have unsafe working conditions led to employee deaths (look up the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire sometime). Most ethical companies would comply with the regulations even if they didn't exist. It's all the associated paperwork that needs to be reduced for many small business people.

employee tax forms: I am not sure what the issue is here, but under a simplified tax system such as the one I favor, employers would report pay, taxes withheld, and social security/medicare withheld. No W-4's to deal with and a very simple W2.

unemployment insurance, liability insurance: I have never seen any reason that insurance of any sort including medical, dental, AD&D, etc should involve an employer. This is an area where a divorce sounds appropriate. That does not mean that an employer would not be wise to carry his own liability insurance. I also believe there should be some form of unemployment insurance, although I am not sure why it should involve individual employers unless there should be an exception for when an employee is fired for cause.

equal opportunity employment requirements, employee discipline records: My general comments about OSHA and EPA apply here as well. Simplify all the paperwork for the smaller guys and hold them responsible for understanding and complying with the law. Little or no paperwork should be required here assuming there is no abuse.

employee facilities: I am not sure what this one is about.

min wage: I disagree with you on this one.

So only one where we completely disagree. For the others, I would just not simply throw out all regulations blindly. I would get rid of ones that are not needed and modify many of the others with the goal of minimizing the burden on small business while still maintaining general compliance with the intent. Remember I believe in subtle shades of gray.

Handicapped parking

wheelchair acessability

fire escape route planning

Osha

epa

min wage

regional industrial codes

employee tax forms

unemployment insurance

liability insurance

equal opportunity employment requirements

employee discipline records

energy efficient lighting

fire alarms, fire extinguishers, fire escape equipment

city codes for exterior decor/ signs

employee facilities

Now before you start screaming, some of these are not necessarily regulations but are done by businesses to protect themselves against lawsuits and discrimination allegations, and yes they are off the top of my head so I'm sure I missed a few good ones. Some of them I actually agree with but they still add to the headache and burden. Just try setting up a business young man, and your tune will change very, very quickly about taxes and regulations or you are a sucker for inevidable failure.

Here is an ethical question for you. You have a small business. You have a good employee who, on a 1-5 scale (1=best), is a consistent 2, sometimes a 1. He comes to you one day and tells you he finds one of your directives to be unethical. He explains his reasoning. You understand why he believes what he believes, even though you look at things differently. What do you do?

pompous a holes

agree, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

The things you keep whining about. All the fault is with others. You live and breathe for a scapegoat. You just don't realize that Bob Zimmermann got it right: The times they are a-changin.

I wonder if you had been born a horse whether you would have whined and whined and whined endlessly about the advent of the automobile. Didn't your mommy ever teach you not to fight mother nature or progress?

(And now back to the non-comedic portion of our show).

Don't hold back now. Go all the way and don't wimp out on us. We know you want to repeal the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, and minimum hourly wages. And we know that if America agrees, you will stop threatening us all with shipping jobs to China and India. You will have all the slave labor right here in the good ol' USA.

Too bad there is a flaw in your thoughts and the crack in your 'logic' is starting to show already. Have you been watching how the cost of labor has been rising in China? Have you noticed that workers there actually have the audacity to begin to ask for things and talk about workers rights? The cheap labor market there wil be, at most, a temporary thing since, believe it or not, people in those terrible foreign countries want the same thing that American workers want.... a fair shar of the pie. And that is what this is all about. How much reward does a person deserve for starting up a business and taking risks? How much value does a CEO add to a company compared to a good worker? Who is more important to you? The Governor of your state or the people who pick up your garbage a few times a week and make it disappear? I don't know about you, but I can sure do without my Governor. And it's about working together in a society and recognizing that the whole thing doesn't work when some of the parts aren't part of things.

We have seen how things work with little or no regulation and it should surprise no one. Human beings are greedy. Human beings are competitive (beyond reason at time). Some people are downright mean and nasty. Some will do anything for a buck .. cheat, lie, steal, and conspire with others to defraud, etc. You just don't want to see that and you yearn for a time when everything was good and nice. My guess that you probably want things pretty much as they were when you were a kid. Guess what? Things were just as bad then, but you were sheltered from it all and actually believe that America was once all about families like the Cleavers, the Andersons (Father Knows Best), and Ozzie and Harriet (Ozzie was so go he didn't even have to work .. he just benefitted from the mythical America with streets paved with gold).

Since you can't tell us any specifics on what you would do about the budget deficits and national debt, and I think you claim to run a small business, perhaps you could give us a list of the top 10 regulations you would like to see repealed or modified and why. Now that should be simple enough for you and you won't even need a google search to do it. This stuff should be right at your fingertips.

"You are forgetting the reason there is a UAW or any union at all"

They were needed when the canaries were dying in the coal mines.

But when management is "forced" into paying line workers the equivalent compensation of $70.00 per hr to put parts on cars, the foxes are running the chicken coupe.

Just what is so wrong for an employer to say to an employee; I am paying $20.00 an hr no more, no less and if you don't like it I of course cannot force you to work for me.

If life is so great as a business owner or at least anyone who hires workers for a salary, then you guy's should go ahead and start something where YOU become the guy doing the hiring!!!

Ahhhhh yes, you are forgetting that it takes immense effort to start a company, so you prefer to have someone else start it and then squeeze for more pay once you get unionized. A little like the pot calling the kettle black here.

The trouble with our president (and all of them before him, to tell the truth) is that he believes more regulation, not less is better for the average American. Nothing could be further from the truth. While some regulations obviously have purpose, the more regulations we can lift from the burden the business owners already carry, the more competitive we become. It is really either increase regulations/ taxation and lose jobs, or decrease them and increase jobs here in the USA. This is indeed an ugly choice, but it really is one we have to make and we also have to accept the consequences of that choice. It's a choice or one or the other, as I do not believe there any good alternatives.

The truth is, when American workers expect and demand > $30.00 an hr for unskilled labor, you will have China or India getting the jobs. This is not to say we do not deserve a better salary than the Indian guy, it is just that the reality is that, that job will go overseas if at all possible. I can see an America where flipping burgers will be a $20.00 an hr job, but virtually no other jobs being available because anything that can be done overseas is being done overseas. Every time American workers squeeze more salary from a factory job than they are actually worth being paid for in the real world of global economies, they push jobs overseas. And I'm not even saying that this is right or wrong, it's just how globalization has changed the business model. You can also blame the internet for contributing highly to this massive change. So the reality is that when Honda pays their workers (in the USA) <<<< $70.00 an hr and GM pays >>>> $70.00 an hr, which workers are actually better off in the long run? My point is, that the Honda guy having job security for as long as Honda stays profitable, is in much better shape than the GM guy. This is of course pre-government take over, as this situation is not the real world since Obama cannot bail out every company that goes bankrupt in the US. I know this sounds un-American, it is not. I am merely bringing into focus how far behind the times the American worker is in the global market we have today. The proof is in all the jobs/ industries we have already lost. Do we really think that this movement is over?

You are forgetting the reason there is a UAW or any union at all.
The rich will always try to squeeze every last nickel out of the worker. Why do you think they send jobs overseas?
They know they can pay $0.10/hr and get away with it.

Yep. It was ALL the UAW's fault. It's always the workers fault. Management made all the right decisions about what cars to design and produce. Detroit executives knew what the American car buyer wanted: Cars that only last two years so everyone can have the ego trip of always driving a new car, cars that guzzle gas, but give every American male a macho-rush as they try to go from 0-60 in 5 seconds in the midst of a bumper-to-bumper traffic, SUVs and Hummers that are needed to get through the rough conditions of rush hour traffic, etc. Management was completely victimized by the evil workers and forced (at gunpoint, although this was not widely reported in the liberal press) to sign a contract which represented a death warrant for American car makers.

The world is black and white. The UAW were 100 % the bad guys and management always wore those nice clean white hats. If government had only been responsive and rounded up all those evil union leaders and had them shot (while, perhaps offering a Congeressional Medal of Freedom as compensation for victimized management) .... the American auto industry would still be ruling the world and the Japanese would all be driving large American vehicles ... and driving on the right side of the road like civilized people since Detroit would have given them no alternative.

See what happens when the country gets run by the low class majority? We simply need to trust the elite rich people to run things. They always have the right answers for everything.

Down with the workers !!! Let's hear it for America, Inc. !!!

" General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour"

You are 100% correct, Detroit got mugged in the alley by the UAW. The world's auto makers were actually starting to equal or surpass their cars in quality decades ago and their reaction was to incease quality only AFTER sales began to suffer. They were always behind the curve--look at what happened with hybrids. Yet they continually caved in to the UAW and their strikes to the point where UAW's pay and the quality gap was laughable. It wasn't unfair competition or even a lack of quality in Detroits cars as they finally closed the gap on quality for the most part, but the excessive pay for their UAW worker's made their business model broken.

The UAW was a significant factor in the automakers’ decline: It had raised Detroit’s labor costs 50 percent to 80 percent above other automakers, such as Toyota and Nissan. In 2006, General Motors paid its unionized workers $70.51 an hour in wages and benefits. Chrysler paid $75.86 an hour.

The overall labor costs for union auto workers was ~~ $80/hr as reported many times on the news ... yes, even liberal ABC. This included the very generous benefit packages, health, retirement, vacation, ,,,,