Ping Larkin

Just don't move around (one location) and they're legit! Who said Obamination was against small businesses.

They's watermelons... green on the outside and red on the inside. 8-(

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Covered. Massive cost, paid with massive taxes, fees, penalties and fines, and lollipops and rainbows.

Fun noire: it's a pain to read, but you can have a lot of fun quickly by searching the .PDF for keywords...

punishment / coercive words "tax" 214 hits, "penalty" 113 hits "fee" "59 hits "shall" 3,424 hits

weasel words "fair" 24 hits "reasonable" 73 hits "appropriate*" 624 hits "reduce" 73 hits

misc. words "Medicare" 465 hits "race" 8 hits "restaurant" 12 hits "vending machine" 4 hits "indian" 1,289 hits "tuition" 9 hits

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Nope. There isn't enough money on the planet to pay for Congress' lollipops and rainbows.

Clarification: "Covered" in the sense of "discussed," not "solved." If you do the numbers, most of it's to be funded with lollipops and rainbows; the rest with taxes, fines, and Medicare cuts (not necessarily in that order).

The original claim that it cuts costs is contradicted on its face by the need to raise ~$1.1T in extra revenue, which, alas, still falls about 50% short of funding the thing, using their numbers & assumptions.

Now Ms. Pelosi carefully only claims it's "deficit neutral," but that's not true either--it's not less than 1/3rd deficit-funded, again assuming all her assumptions. Which, one might add, are outrageous.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

I analyze financial markets. Obama's turning overturning everything so quickly on so many fronts it's impossible to keep up. And huge things are being done in the shadows, behind closed doors and fuzzy curtains.

Best I can tell, the deficit, unimaginable as it is, is massively understated. I'm not a monetary policy expert, but I can only see said understatement as being hugely debt-financed. Whatever the actual borrowing, it can only be "unwound" by paying back that debt--which isn't going to happen--or inflating it away.

Jobs? The current health care bill penalizes employers who don't provide government-approved health care. So, when you make it a greater and greater pain to employ people, the easy, obvious, and only solution is to outsource, to export jobs, to hire fewer workers. So of course there'll be fewer jobs. I, personally, will create fewer jobs. I guarantee it.

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Or just print the money.

I wonder what are the comparative effects. Massive taxation kills business and exports productive jobs; inflation steals savings. Everything considered, printing money is probably the better of the unsavory choices. Obama and crew will no doubt do both.

John

Not really. The only sensible alternative is to get away from monopolies. So we now heat with wood.

Only remedy is "starve the beast". That's what California voters have made abundantly clear, no new taxes blessed by them. Except for school bonds but that's because the 2/3rds majority for those has been diluted down to 55% and there just enough leftists to pass those.

The only way to "starve the beast" is New York style... move out of the state. ...Jim Thompson

I note, with considerable chagrin, that ALL my chip design business is now coming from overseas.

I now wonder, where is the best place to live, under such income situations, so as to pay NO taxes ?:-) ...Jim Thompson

I'll probably hold the line at about 20 employees and do more outsourcing and contracting. The US and California have made jobs too expensive and too much hassle. This will, paradoxically, increase the spread between the rich and the poor.

Are these people stupid or evil? Probably both.

John

BTDT. ;-)

When they go through with the net receipts tax thing in CA where salaries are supposedly non-deductible the others will do exactly the same. AFAIK consultant/contractor bills will be deductible. Of course then they'll sock us with that source tax at the receiving end. At any rate, the unemplyment rate will show a huge jolt. Upwards.

I haven't really thought about the administration in those terms--I s'pose I can point to a few of each.

For example, Pelosi is dim, believes in lollipops, that her opponents are evil, and is willing to crush them, by hook, or crook. Did she believe the things she told us about the new health care bill she introduced on Thursday? By her facial expressions and tone, no, she doesn't.

My own version of Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence." But there's a second part, a caveat: "Don't be a fool--malice exists."

-- Cheers, James Arthur

-- Cheers, James Arthur

Pelosi has facial expressions? She likely does think the lollipops are good, _for_her_. She comes from a nutty enough constituency that she's untouchable. Her platinum plated health care won't be affected, or taxed. She's the ruling class so death boards won't matter. That's little people stuff.

Certainly it does. Now convince Obama of that (and that we aren't it).

I read that. A lot of those are fleeing NYC but not NYS. Go figure.

I bet the thing they can't stand is having other states compete with them, places like Texas and Nevada that are more wealth-friendly. I predict there will be action to reduce that, like more Federal taxes and more grants to states. That will, of course, drive the wealth out of the country.

People who hate wealth wind up having none.

John