Hi Jack, Yes we have seen what fiscal responsibility looks like in the Obama era. Spending more in 6 years than all the other President’s combined in the history of the country and what do we have to show for it except for insurmountable debt in our future generations. Well, he did say when he was re-elected, I am not finished yet transforming the country.
I’m still struggling to understand what Obama’s fiscal policy has to do with applying the fiduciary standard to Wall Street and Insurance Agents.
Frankly, when I went over to the agency side I was appalled at what insurance agents were doing with “suitable” products. In addition to selling the product with the highest commission, they sold stuff that was not appropriate under the fiduciary standard and to people with diminished capacity.
Appropriately, insurance agents on the life side are considered unseemly characters.
You should embrace the fiduciary standard and do the right thing for your customers.
But hey, you probably don’t like these observations or discussion so go back to something irrelevant.
JohnS, do you not stay up with the news? Obama is all about mandating, controlling, regulating to the maximum degree. Dodd-Frank was a joke and is in the process of having much of that rolled back on the banks. By the way, I don’t know any Life agents who sell improper products to the public or don’t conform to Fiduciary standards. Now, the online life companies may have some issues informing the public about what they do. They advertise all these bogus rates on Life all the time hoping to lure the online shopper who doesn’t read the fine print.
Agent, your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing again.
This article is about requiring agents who handle customers’ retirement accounts to “put their clients interest first.” It is Not about Dodd-Frank and it is NOT about Obama’s spending policies.
And, since you don’t know any agents who don’t already conform to Fiduciary standards, you clearly understand the importance of using this standard and are fully in favor of the change, right?
If you are not in favor of this change, please explain why not.
I know it is 100% on topic, but you should google “profits without propsperity” and read the article from the Harvard Business Review. Don’t be afraid to read something from one of those nasty Liberal universities. They are actually criticizing some of their own graduates.
If you have a shred of understanding of finance and economics, you should gain a better understanding that the stagnant job market and wages is driven by corporate greed far more than government regulation. In particular, this article discusses what happens when regulations are lossened.
I’m curious if you’ve read all the arguments on this, or just the liberal ones. It is somewhat ironic that in the same point as stating he shouldn’t be afraid to read liberal universities, you state in order to have a shred of understanding he must listen to liberal universities. This kind of shows your bias Ron.
I will explain why. Are you aware of the counter Switzerland argument showing that the more you regulate corporate entities, the worse the pay of the employees in the corporation?
Are you also aware that Obama himself said that small businesses are the source of most job growth.
Estimates are varied as to what the actual percentages are, but here is a little research, as opposed to your links that tend to basically be theory and conclusion. Why don’t you look at percentages and make a conclusion yourself?
So when I’m looking at this I think saying 50/50 would be a safe hypothetical. If that’s the case, corporate greed cannot possibly be fueling the stagnant wages. Small businesses clearly cannot pay more, and this means the corporations cannot possibly be stagnating wages more than limitations in general. While corporations do get more efficient than small business, you cannot expect for a corporation to be able to maintain that efficiency while you tax and regulate the hell out of them.
A good regulation might be: X amount of the corporation’s profit gets mandated to wages. This is better than a tax or phony regulation to keep them in check. 90% of all those are fake. Only 2 internet providers are in my area, due to regulation. DHT was forced out of Oregon by regulation. Regulation is favoring either UPS or Fed ex via flight regulations. Anyone who passes a regulation on a type of business in government, ALWAYS let me repeat that ALWAYS let me repeat that ALWAYS has a hidden agenda to get a monopoly. We should not, will not, and cannot, pass regulations on types of business as a class without risking becoming an Oligarchy like Russia.
One other thing to consider si how pay amongst larger corporations tend to be used as a benchmark for smaller buisinesses.
Second, you said, “Are you aware of the counter Switzerland argument showing that the more you regulate corporate entities, the worse the pay of the employees in the corporation?” Then later in your own post you presented a counter to this statement.
Thirdly, if you were to pay attention to my posts, with proper reading comprehension, you would know that I am not an advocate of all regulations and think many regulations could be eliminated or revised to be less burdensome on businesses. I believe there needs to be a balance between a total free-market system and some government invovlement. Neither could sustain an economy without the other. This is what we have had during the course of our county’s histroy, through all of our presidents, and it has served our country and economy very well.
Finally, please advise what in my post inspired you to make the statement, “you state in order to have a shred of understanding he must listen to liberal universities”? I believe, based on many of Agent’s posts, that he has a cursory understanding of economics, at best. He may be an expert at running an insurance agency, but I believe that where it stops.
June 1, 2015 at 2:09 pm
bob says:
Like or Dislike:
8
5
In essence, you want the corporation to be 74% better at paying employees than a small business, and to magically support the other half of the population.
You think they are greedy? Hell no. Hell #%@ing no. I’m tired of the class warfare from you and your liberal buddies.
They pay more taxes. They are more efficient (otherwise despite a 74% disadvantage they wouldn’t be paying as much or more than small businesses with better benefits). And they can build the economy rather well.
Very few corporations fall into the corporate greed category, and when they do, they are always in league with the government.
Like green energy. Or Oligarchy type styles in Russia.
“If you have a shred of understanding of finance and economics, you should gain a better understanding that the stagnant job market and wages is driven by corporate greed far more than government regulation.”
“Don’t be afraid to read something from one of those nasty Liberal universities.”
These two combined, show that you believe that corporate greed is the driver more than regulation. You contradicted yourself, by stating first that if I had “reading comprehension” which we will NOT be having you say again, are we clear BOY? Every time you screw up you say someone else lacks reading comprehension.
Moving on, you contradicted yourself by stating that you don’t believe in regulations, but then stated regulation has less of an affect than corporate greed according to your liberal source, which if he had any shred of knowledge he would read based on your other statements.
Second of all: In order to have contradicted my statement of a Switzerland study that more regulations harmed those in the corporation, I would have had to have then said more regulations were good. I didn’t. There was no contradiction, and in fact, this questions YOUR reading comprehension BOY. Why do I keep calling you BOY? You will NOT rely on that reading comprehension ploy any longer. My reading skills surpass yours, provable by the fact that you think I contradicted myself. I didn’t. Only someone insane or without reading comprehension skills would think as much.
Now onto whether the government has a greater impact:
“Randolph finds that under baseline assumptions, domestic labor bears the bulk of
the tax—74 percent—while domestic capital bear
s 33 percent of the burden, expressed as
a share of revenue. ”
Really. So that 74% beared by domestic labor, must have nothing to do with the government, right?
Combine this with my other comment. If stagnant wages were the fault of the corporation more than the government, there would therefore have to be at least a 74% difference between small business and corporations in pay, as if corporate greed were the factor, small businesses would kind of be exempt would they not? Please explain how the corporate greed is causing equal pay in the same job field as opposed to a difference in pay?
Corporate greed cannot be the factor. It must be economical. If we have estimates showing 74% of a tax is burdened by the domestic labor, then we see the cost of labor goes up by 74% yet the corporations still pay equal, and often give more benefits. Do you or do you not see the problem in the equation?
Small businesses have literal limitations, and corporations have a 74% mark up just on taxes alone that go to domestic labor burden.
Therefore, we can conclude that it is not corporate greed, and it is government interference that is affecting this.
Since you are a little slow, I will break it down for you. There are 2 separate thoughts in my sentence which is why there is a comma. Now that we have reviewed 2nd grade grammar, onto my actual sentence.
First statement, “If you have a shred of understanding of finance and economics”. Meaning Agent would have to already have such understanding, whether the source be liberal, conservative or other, to comprehend the article.
Second statement, “you should gain a better understanding that the stagnant job market and wages is driven by corporate greed far more than government regulation”. This means the content of the specific article would provide such insight if he already has an existing understanding of finance and economics.
My other sentence, “Don’t be afraid to read something from one of those nasty Liberal universities.” was meant to be a totally separate thought. If you want to combine them because it is the only way to make your case, fine. Just understand it was not my intent. Therefore, I was not lying. Apology accepted.
Please work on your reading comprehension. Just don’t ask Agent for help.
Corporations have the means to invest, grow, expand and hire, but prefer to maximize their own leaders’ compensation, maximize shareholder value, and continue to increase productivity with no more or even less employees, at the same or lower wage, knowing that they have nowhere else to go. They have become short-term thinkers instead of long-term visionaries. This is at least as harmful to society as regulations are to the bottom line.
Both sides are sick of the class warfare. Unfortunately, nobody knows how to stop it. Don’t think a Republican president will fix it. There has been class warfare since slavery because of greed and the free market calls for income inequality. Let me be prefectly clear, I personally bear absolutely no ill will towards anyone financially successful because, even though I will never be a millionaire, I am content in my life and feel like a success because I am doing much better than my parents, have a good healthy family, and my children are all on track to do better than me. With that said, only Communism, Marxism, Socialism can stop class warfare. Therefore, if you want to stop class warfare, you are for those other economic structures.
You said, “Therefore, we can conclude that it is not corporate greed, and it is government interference that is affecting this.” No. We SHOULD conclude that both are factors. We can agree to disagree which is a more significant factor.
June 1, 2015 at 4:11 pm
Headache Central says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
83
67
Unreal bob. Ron agrees with your points and then you make post calling him boy and idiot and a liar and a hypocrite. You just gave me a migraine with your 180.
Can we all just get along? No? Okay. Can you stop calling adults BOY and stop insulting people every chance you get?
Challenge – try this out once and see how it feels. Instead of insulting me in a reply, how about you post a reply saying “I do not agree with anything you said, and I do not agree with how you said it, but we live in America and you have a right to your opinion” and then stop writing. Can you do that without throwing out any insults? I challenge you to write like an even-keeled and well-adjusted adult one time.
June 3, 2016 at 11:26 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
Honest question, are there multiple people posting with the name “Bob”? Because many of these statements directly contradict other statements, and combined these comments are outright delusional.
For the real Bob, who posted an article proving nothing, 500 employees qualifies as a small company, your comment about making them pay 74% more would account for almost every business in the US, if you were to pretend it made sense, which it doesn’t. You are as blinded by your ideology here as you are when you deny, ignore, and lie about effective tax rates.
When you whine constantly about class warfare, and then support 40 years of policies that have destroyed the middle class you are supporting class warfare. You have railed against unions, safety regulations, and now regulations requiring financial institutions to put the interests of their paying customers ahead of their own when giving advice. This did not spring from nowhere, it came about due to widespread fraud. You are all for class warfare, as long as people who aren’t born well off, don’t have connections, and are not in the upper classes cannot fight. You are nothing but a machine that regurgitates right wing talking points-not an original thought in your head.
Here is an example of how those non-greedy corporations are doing so poorly and can’t afford to pay their fair share anymore.
Ron, I see that Bob cannot reason with you anymore than I have for the past 4 years. There is no doubt in my mind that government is responsible for most of the largesse in this economy. When you have a government who is taxing, spending, regulating unmercifully, passing the worst legislation in history(Obamacare), how are businesses supposed to react to it? Do you really believe that they should just bite the bullet and raise salaries of employees in the face of this crap? By the way, the Health carriers are ready to pass on more double digit rate increases to offset increased costs. Where is that savings of $2,500 for the average family?
You asked, “When you have a government who is taxing, spending, regulating unmercifully, passing the worst legislation in history(Obamacare), how are businesses supposed to react to it?” We still do not have the highest tax rates in our history, spending has been going down each year since President Obama’s first term, and some regulations have been loosened in certain industries. I will not defend the PPACA, but I will say that the country has experienced net jobs gained nearly every month since the law passed which means many businesses have been starting, growing and hiring since the law passed. How do you explain that?
You asked, “Do you really believe that they should just bite the bullet and raise salaries of employees in the face of this crap?” if they are making record profits, then YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there any better way to help the economy than consumers having more money to spend?
You have proven to have little to no understanding of economics. You are way too ingrained in business and greed. There is a significant difference between economics and business.
You asked, “By the way, the Health carriers are ready to pass on more double digit rate increases to offset increased costs. Where is that savings of $2,500 for the average family?” How many times do I have to tell you that I will not defend the PPACA?
THAT is how you answer someone’s questions. Try it sometime, if you the cajones. I am guessing you do not.
June 2, 2015 at 3:00 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
94
68
Wrong again Ron. The US has the highest corporate tax rate among all industrialized nations. Spending has not gone down. He has added more debt than all previous President’s in the history of the country. $10 Trillion in a little over 6 years. EPA has been churning out thousands of new regulations during Obama’s term. Obamacare has more than 10,000 pages of regulations since they passed the 2,700 page monstrocity. How do you explain the lowest labor participation rate since 1978 under Carter? How about that net 1.5%-2% growth in the economy? It should have been 4-5% by now. Your Progressive President and his minions are responsible. Every post you make, you dig a deeper hole for yourself and your father in law pegged you long ago.
Still not answering my questions even though I addressed each of yours, regardless how loaded.
How can I be wrong when I did not compare our corporate tax rate to the rest of the industrialized nations? I was only speaking about our country and its history. Our current corporate tax rate is not the highest in our history. It has not increased since 1993 and was actually higher during most of President Reagan’s administration than it is now.
You said, “He has added more debt than all previous President’s in the history of the country” Are you referring to President Reagan, GW Bush or Obama? They all accomplished this feat.
Maybe if President Nixon did not create the EPA, we would not have that problem.
No president is responsible for the Labor Participation Rate. If that is the case, how did it see its largest 4-year increase during President Carter’s term? Are you going to give him credit for that? I would not.
Until you can properly comprehend simple topics, I should not expect you to handle complex issues.
You lose, again.
June 3, 2015 at 9:47 am
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
108
50
Hey Ron, are you ready for the latest “whopper” told by the President you voted for twice?
Yesterday at the White House, he said; “One of my core principles is that I will never engage in politics in which I’m trying to divide people”.
He actually said it with a straight face. I am not sure who is a bigger liar, him or Hillary. It is very close between them.
THAT is your response to my post? Not able to defend yourself after I proved you wrong? I even used a Conservative source. No credit for that?
Did you see that the president’s approval rating went down? But still has never reached President Reagan’s lowest approval rating. It also shows that the same people prefer Democrats over Republicans.
Name me one national politician, and I will find multiple lies. What is the point? They all suck.
The difference between you and me, from this prospective, is that you do not see and/or acknowledge the lies from your side where I have acknowledged my disapointment in President Obama’s lies.
June 3, 2015 at 12:03 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
127
38
Ron, since you cannot comprehend anything anyone posts and put your own liberal spin on it, allow me to clarify the spending issue. Obama has spent more than all previous President’s “combined” in the history of the country. When he came into office, the accumulated national debt was about $8 Trillion. Now, it is over $18 Trillion and at the rate he is going will be pushing $20 Trillion by the time he leaves office. He has managed that in less than 7 years. Spin your way out of that.
June 3, 2015 at 12:42 pm
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
118
21
Ron, I answered you, but you don’t like my answer. Too bad. Why do you continue to try to justify your vote for the worst President in the history of the country? I think I would call that desperation. Expressing disappointment in some of Obama’s polcies is a milquetoast reply. You should be angry about his whole 2 1/2 terms and everything he has done to bring this country to its knees. Please name a policy or program he has done that is not scandalous, devious or lied about. How about that TSA as a good example? 96% failure rate to catch weapons on people boarding airplanes. Then, he comes out and says he is confident about the security of the country??????? He didn’t even fire the head of TSA, just re-assigned him. Hello! Can you say massive failure?
The fact that you believe you have answered my questions is mind boggling. That is likeley your problem. You do not even know how clueless you are.
Here are several questions unanswered just on this article:
1. Is there any better way to help the economy than consumers having more money to spend?
2. How many times do I have to tell you that I will not defend the PPACA?
3. How can I be wrong when I did not compare our corporate tax rate to the rest of the industrialized nations?
4. This from the Heritage Foundation. Is that a Liberal website?
5. Are you referring to President Reagan, GW Bush or Obama? They all accomplished this feat. (That one is probably more rhetorical)
6. If that is the case, how did it see its (Labor Participation Rate) largest 4-year increase during President Carter’s term? Are you going to give him credit for that?
6. Name me one national politician, and I will find multiple lies. What is the point?
Please tell me your answers to those questions that I don’t like.
If you have any unanswered questions for me, please let me know.
President Reagan added $1.86 Trillion the the existing $998 Billion debt. Presidebnt GW Bush added $5.849 Trillion to the existing $5.8 Trillion debt.
The 5 smallest increases in the debt since President Coolidge (the last to reduce the debt) are
1. Truman – 3%
2. JFK – 8%
3. Eisenhower – 9%
4. Johnson – 13%
5. Clinton – 32%
The 5 highest increase:
1. FDR – 1,048%
2. Reagan – 186%
3. GW Bush – 101%
4. GHW Bush – 54%
5. Ford – 47%
Interesting that 3 of the 5 smallest increase occurred during Democratic administrations, but 4 of the 5 highest were during Republican administrations and President Obama is not one of them. Granted his term isn’t over, but it would take something catastrophic to get him on the list.
Please tell us again how having a Republican president will solve our fiscal issues?
Now, to your questions:
You asked, “Why do you continue to try to justify your vote for the worst President in the history of the country?” I am not justifying my vote, just pointing out your hatred of President Obama is not based in facts, only perception.
You asked, “Please name a policy or program he has done that is not scandalous, devious or lied about.” Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. I would give you more, but you only asked for one.
You asked, “How about that TSA as a good example? 96% failure rate to catch weapons on people boarding airplanes. Then, he comes out and says he is confident about the security of the country??????? He didn’t even fire the head of TSA, just re-assigned him. Hello! Can you say massive failure?” I agree with you. This is totally unacceptable.
That is how you are suppose to answer questions. Try it sometime.
June 3, 2016 at 11:43 am
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Hey Agent, since you are so worried about growth, and particularly 3% growth, are you willing to say you will never vote for a Republican again since they have worse growth than Democrats, and an average under 3%?
presidentialdata.org/gdp_growth-s.jpg
Data from commerce department. Also, why specifically do you think US growth should be viewed purely in nominal terms instead of in comparison with the rest of the economies in the world? I ask not because I think you are completely ignorant on the topic, or stupid and clueless beyond belief, and ignoring this point which I have brought up numerous times, but because I want to be enlightened by the views you claim are superior and based on data and reality.
June 1, 2015 at 10:10 am
Agent says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
147
105
So you were appalled at what agent’s were doing on the Life side John? Tell me, are you still on the agency side or did the agent let you go for lack of production? Why aren’t you appalled at the online or radio ads selling Life products for just a price? It is hardly any different than GEICO or Progressive.
That is your response to his comment, Agent? You are a freaking idiot.
I’m 100% sure you are an immoral broker. You don’t know anything, and whine about ads because they are your competitors. He made a sensible comment and your response is thst he got fired for not producing. You are trash.
Go back to posting lies and right wing propaganda, because you know zero about insurance
I find it assuring that the head of the regulatory agency’s last name is Ketchum
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
I’m still struggling to understand what Obama’s fiscal policy has to do with applying the fiduciary standard to Wall Street and Insurance Agents.
Frankly, when I went over to the agency side I was appalled at what insurance agents were doing with “suitable” products. In addition to selling the product with the highest commission, they sold stuff that was not appropriate under the fiduciary standard and to people with diminished capacity.
Appropriately, insurance agents on the life side are considered unseemly characters.
You should embrace the fiduciary standard and do the right thing for your customers.
But hey, you probably don’t like these observations or discussion so go back to something irrelevant.
JohnS, Thank you for talking about the issue at hand and contributing to the conversation.
Obama flame wars may be more fun, but are certainly less substantive.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Agent, your lack of reading comprehension skills are showing again.
This article is about requiring agents who handle customers’ retirement accounts to “put their clients interest first.” It is Not about Dodd-Frank and it is NOT about Obama’s spending policies.
And, since you don’t know any agents who don’t already conform to Fiduciary standards, you clearly understand the importance of using this standard and are fully in favor of the change, right?
If you are not in favor of this change, please explain why not.
Obama flame wars couldn’t even take a 3 post break before being brought up again. Way to stay on topic
Agent,
I know it is 100% on topic, but you should google “profits without propsperity” and read the article from the Harvard Business Review. Don’t be afraid to read something from one of those nasty Liberal universities. They are actually criticizing some of their own graduates.
If you have a shred of understanding of finance and economics, you should gain a better understanding that the stagnant job market and wages is driven by corporate greed far more than government regulation. In particular, this article discusses what happens when regulations are lossened.
Enjoy.
I’m curious if you’ve read all the arguments on this, or just the liberal ones. It is somewhat ironic that in the same point as stating he shouldn’t be afraid to read liberal universities, you state in order to have a shred of understanding he must listen to liberal universities. This kind of shows your bias Ron.
I will explain why. Are you aware of the counter Switzerland argument showing that the more you regulate corporate entities, the worse the pay of the employees in the corporation?
Are you also aware that Obama himself said that small businesses are the source of most job growth.
Estimates are varied as to what the actual percentages are, but here is a little research, as opposed to your links that tend to basically be theory and conclusion. Why don’t you look at percentages and make a conclusion yourself?
So when I’m looking at this I think saying 50/50 would be a safe hypothetical. If that’s the case, corporate greed cannot possibly be fueling the stagnant wages. Small businesses clearly cannot pay more, and this means the corporations cannot possibly be stagnating wages more than limitations in general. While corporations do get more efficient than small business, you cannot expect for a corporation to be able to maintain that efficiency while you tax and regulate the hell out of them.
A good regulation might be: X amount of the corporation’s profit gets mandated to wages. This is better than a tax or phony regulation to keep them in check. 90% of all those are fake. Only 2 internet providers are in my area, due to regulation. DHT was forced out of Oregon by regulation. Regulation is favoring either UPS or Fed ex via flight regulations. Anyone who passes a regulation on a type of business in government, ALWAYS let me repeat that ALWAYS let me repeat that ALWAYS has a hidden agenda to get a monopoly. We should not, will not, and cannot, pass regulations on types of business as a class without risking becoming an Oligarchy like Russia.
bob,
First, I agree with you on most of your points.
One other thing to consider si how pay amongst larger corporations tend to be used as a benchmark for smaller buisinesses.
Second, you said, “Are you aware of the counter Switzerland argument showing that the more you regulate corporate entities, the worse the pay of the employees in the corporation?” Then later in your own post you presented a counter to this statement.
Thirdly, if you were to pay attention to my posts, with proper reading comprehension, you would know that I am not an advocate of all regulations and think many regulations could be eliminated or revised to be less burdensome on businesses. I believe there needs to be a balance between a total free-market system and some government invovlement. Neither could sustain an economy without the other. This is what we have had during the course of our county’s histroy, through all of our presidents, and it has served our country and economy very well.
Finally, please advise what in my post inspired you to make the statement, “you state in order to have a shred of understanding he must listen to liberal universities”? I believe, based on many of Agent’s posts, that he has a cursory understanding of economics, at best. He may be an expert at running an insurance agency, but I believe that where it stops.
In essence, you want the corporation to be 74% better at paying employees than a small business, and to magically support the other half of the population.
You think they are greedy? Hell no. Hell #%@ing no. I’m tired of the class warfare from you and your liberal buddies.
They pay more taxes. They are more efficient (otherwise despite a 74% disadvantage they wouldn’t be paying as much or more than small businesses with better benefits). And they can build the economy rather well.
Very few corporations fall into the corporate greed category, and when they do, they are always in league with the government.
Like green energy. Or Oligarchy type styles in Russia.
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional-Economist/April-2011/Are-Small-Businesses-the-Biggest-Producers-of-Jobs
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Unreal bob. Ron agrees with your points and then you make post calling him boy and idiot and a liar and a hypocrite. You just gave me a migraine with your 180.
Can we all just get along? No? Okay. Can you stop calling adults BOY and stop insulting people every chance you get?
Challenge – try this out once and see how it feels. Instead of insulting me in a reply, how about you post a reply saying “I do not agree with anything you said, and I do not agree with how you said it, but we live in America and you have a right to your opinion” and then stop writing. Can you do that without throwing out any insults? I challenge you to write like an even-keeled and well-adjusted adult one time.
Honest question, are there multiple people posting with the name “Bob”? Because many of these statements directly contradict other statements, and combined these comments are outright delusional.
For the real Bob, who posted an article proving nothing, 500 employees qualifies as a small company, your comment about making them pay 74% more would account for almost every business in the US, if you were to pretend it made sense, which it doesn’t. You are as blinded by your ideology here as you are when you deny, ignore, and lie about effective tax rates.
When you whine constantly about class warfare, and then support 40 years of policies that have destroyed the middle class you are supporting class warfare. You have railed against unions, safety regulations, and now regulations requiring financial institutions to put the interests of their paying customers ahead of their own when giving advice. This did not spring from nowhere, it came about due to widespread fraud. You are all for class warfare, as long as people who aren’t born well off, don’t have connections, and are not in the upper classes cannot fight. You are nothing but a machine that regurgitates right wing talking points-not an original thought in your head.
Here is an example of how those non-greedy corporations are doing so poorly and can’t afford to pay their fair share anymore.
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CP
Ron, I see that Bob cannot reason with you anymore than I have for the past 4 years. There is no doubt in my mind that government is responsible for most of the largesse in this economy. When you have a government who is taxing, spending, regulating unmercifully, passing the worst legislation in history(Obamacare), how are businesses supposed to react to it? Do you really believe that they should just bite the bullet and raise salaries of employees in the face of this crap? By the way, the Health carriers are ready to pass on more double digit rate increases to offset increased costs. Where is that savings of $2,500 for the average family?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Wrong again Ron. The US has the highest corporate tax rate among all industrialized nations. Spending has not gone down. He has added more debt than all previous President’s in the history of the country. $10 Trillion in a little over 6 years. EPA has been churning out thousands of new regulations during Obama’s term. Obamacare has more than 10,000 pages of regulations since they passed the 2,700 page monstrocity. How do you explain the lowest labor participation rate since 1978 under Carter? How about that net 1.5%-2% growth in the economy? It should have been 4-5% by now. Your Progressive President and his minions are responsible. Every post you make, you dig a deeper hole for yourself and your father in law pegged you long ago.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hey Ron, are you ready for the latest “whopper” told by the President you voted for twice?
Yesterday at the White House, he said; “One of my core principles is that I will never engage in politics in which I’m trying to divide people”.
He actually said it with a straight face. I am not sure who is a bigger liar, him or Hillary. It is very close between them.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ron, since you cannot comprehend anything anyone posts and put your own liberal spin on it, allow me to clarify the spending issue. Obama has spent more than all previous President’s “combined” in the history of the country. When he came into office, the accumulated national debt was about $8 Trillion. Now, it is over $18 Trillion and at the rate he is going will be pushing $20 Trillion by the time he leaves office. He has managed that in less than 7 years. Spin your way out of that.
Ron, I answered you, but you don’t like my answer. Too bad. Why do you continue to try to justify your vote for the worst President in the history of the country? I think I would call that desperation. Expressing disappointment in some of Obama’s polcies is a milquetoast reply. You should be angry about his whole 2 1/2 terms and everything he has done to bring this country to its knees. Please name a policy or program he has done that is not scandalous, devious or lied about. How about that TSA as a good example? 96% failure rate to catch weapons on people boarding airplanes. Then, he comes out and says he is confident about the security of the country??????? He didn’t even fire the head of TSA, just re-assigned him. Hello! Can you say massive failure?
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hey Agent, since you are so worried about growth, and particularly 3% growth, are you willing to say you will never vote for a Republican again since they have worse growth than Democrats, and an average under 3%?
presidentialdata.org/gdp_growth-s.jpg
Data from commerce department. Also, why specifically do you think US growth should be viewed purely in nominal terms instead of in comparison with the rest of the economies in the world? I ask not because I think you are completely ignorant on the topic, or stupid and clueless beyond belief, and ignoring this point which I have brought up numerous times, but because I want to be enlightened by the views you claim are superior and based on data and reality.
So you were appalled at what agent’s were doing on the Life side John? Tell me, are you still on the agency side or did the agent let you go for lack of production? Why aren’t you appalled at the online or radio ads selling Life products for just a price? It is hardly any different than GEICO or Progressive.
That is your response to his comment, Agent? You are a freaking idiot.
I’m 100% sure you are an immoral broker. You don’t know anything, and whine about ads because they are your competitors. He made a sensible comment and your response is thst he got fired for not producing. You are trash.
Go back to posting lies and right wing propaganda, because you know zero about insurance