Business Bankruptcy Law | Small Business Bankruptcy Laws

1.
The U.S. economy has lost 2.64 million jobs since you took office. The unemployment rate is 9.5% and rising. The good scenario is one in which the unemployment rate begins to decline early next year. The Vice President said your Administration misread the economy. You said you had incomplete information when proposing the stimulus. Yet you have said you would not change anything about the stimulus if you could. If the facts have changed, why doesn’t it make sense to change your policy?

2.
Last month’s jobs report was the first since you took office that was worse than the prior month. Do you think the economy is getting stronger or weaker right now? If the next jobs report gets still worse, will you re-evaluate the need for a change in fiscal policy?

3.
Do you maintain your promise not to allow taxes to be raised on people earning less than 0,000 per year? Will you insist that health care legislation conform with this commitment?

4.
Chrysler and GM have exited bankruptcy. Are U.S. taxpayers done subsidizing these firms? What is your exit strategy from taxpayers owning much of GM and Chrysler?

5.
You proposed spending money from the TARP to prevent foreclosures, help small businesses, and to buy toxic assets from banks. In June CBO said they had found no evidence that any money has been spent for any of these programs. How many foreclosures have been prevented, how many small businesses have received loans from, and how many toxic assets have been purchased?

I am confused on how providing services will decrease the deficit. Here is the quote that I need desperate clarification for:

"Lie #5: Obama’s health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families, small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than trillion dollars a year on health care. The average family premium is projected to rise to over ,000 in the next decade (presently averaging ,500)—and each year, nearly a million people face bankruptcy because of medical expenses. Reform, with an affordable, high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama’s reform plans would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit."

Rush Limbaugh, the Junkie who serves as the main voice of the Republican party, has come out saying that his minions should stop President Obama from achieving the real change that America needs after 8 years of failed policies under Bush and the Republicans.

Now, Republican America-hater Jim DeMint has come out saying that the Republicans need to keep America from moving forward with sensible health care reform so that the Republicans can continue their failed agenda in the future.

These people are playing politics while America struggles to get out of the economic hole that their failed policies got us into.

Millions of Americans have no health care.

Millions of small businesses are driven out of business because they can’t afford health care costs.

The current health care system that funnels money into the pockets of the Republicans’ Wall Street donors has driven GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.

Why are Republicans so willing to play politics rather than to work to make America better?

Our politicians blame our corporations. But our corporations did not approve NAFTA or our membership in the WTO. Our corporations did not allow China to join the WTO and they did not open our markets to slave wage countries (including China).

I spent over 30 years working with small businesses in a variety of industries. When I started, most of them were manufacturers. By the time I retired, almost all of those who were still in business had become importers. But most of them had gone out of business because they could not produce goods here and compete with foreign manufactures whose labor costs were 80% to 95% lower than theirs.

When it costs a domestic manufacturer more to make a product than an importer is selling the same product for, the domestic company cannot continue to manufacture its products here. That guarantees bankruptcy, and many of our companies that could not or would not adapt to the change in the rules of “competition” did go bankrupt.

Our corporations may not be perfect, but they did not create or promote the idea that “free” trade was and is “good for everybody,” and they did not hang their workers out to dry as they rushed to buy goods from foreign suppliers.

Look in your closets, your kitchens, your bedrooms and your cars. Look for country of origin labels or stickers. You will see who else is responsible for “exporting" our jobs.

If it gives small businesses 5,000$ to hire someone & they don’t get more customers they would have to let them go or let them sit on their duffs. All this bill will do is put the country closer to bankruptcy. This may be what obama & the democrats want. All this stimulus has only given a few government jobs that aren’t needed & some short term construction jobs.that has cost us dearly.

I am wondering about the accuracy of the media’s reports regarding the supposed tightening of credit markets and credit lines for individuals and small businesses. In my area, banks and other lending institutions have been heavily bombarding the radio and tv with ads stating that there is no credit crunch, that they have ample money to lend, that if you could have gotten a loan a year ago, you still can, etc. -basically they are begging people to come in and get a loan for everything from a house to a car to a 0 personal loan!

Also, the media’s reports of a tightening of credit card lines also seems to be a fable. I have talked to various individuals in my area and have discovered that 4 of my friends and family have had their credit lines automatically increased on their credit cards and so have those of several small business owners that I have talked with.

"Maybe" this is a result of the 700 B. TARP, but I am doubtful of that since one of the major lenders to GM shut down their credit line even when it was looking like they would get their bailout loan (or maybe the lender was just scared to lend to a failing company facing bankruptcy, but I digress).

I am just wondering basically if anyone else is seeing such a push in their local area from lenders trying hard to get people to borrow money. Has anyone seen this? If not, what is the situation that you are seeing. I am on the east coast, by the way.

Here are some of the groups on the menu if anything like the existing Senate or House health plans become law:

• Young people. If the government mandates that everyone must have health insurance, healthy young people will have to buy policies that don’t reflect the low risk they have of getting sick. The House and Senate bills do let insurers set premiums based on age, but only up to a 2-to-1 ratio, versus a real-world ratio of 5 to 1. This means lower prices for older (and wealthier) folks, but high prices for the young. “They’ll have sticker shock,” says Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the Budget Committee.

• Small Businesses. Employers who don’t provide coverage will have to pay a tax up to 8% of their payroll. Yet those who do provide coverage also have to pay the tax—if the law says their coverage is not “adequate.” Amazingly, even if a small business provides adequate insurance but its employees choose coverage in another plan offered through the government, the employer still must pay.

• Health Savings Account (HSA) holders. Eight million Americans, according to the Treasury Department, are covered by plans with low-cost premiums and high deductibles that are designed for large, unexpected medical costs. Money is also set aside in a savings account to cover the deductibles, and whatever isn’t spent in one year can build up tax-free. Nearly a third of new HSA users, according to Treasury figures, previously had no insurance or bought coverage on their own.

These policies will be severely limited. The Senate plan says a policy deemed “acceptable” must have insurance (rather than the individual) pay out at least 76% of the benefits. The House plan is pegged at 70%. That’s not the way these plans are set up to work. Ray Ramthun, who implemented the HSA regulations at the Treasury Department in 2003, says the regulations are crippling. “Companies tell me they could be forced to take products off the market,” he said in an interview.

• Medicare Advantage users. Mr. Obama and Congressional Democrats want to cut back this program—care provided by private companies and subsidized by the government. Medicare Advantage grew by 15% last year; 10.5 million seniors, or 22% of all Medicare patients, are now enrolled.

The program is especially popular with those in badly served urban areas and with those who can’t afford the premiums for Medicare supplemental (MediGap) policies. A total of 54% of Hispanics on Medicare have chosen Medicare Advantage, as have 40% of African-Americans, according to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

These plans tend to provide better coordinated and preventive care, and richer prescription drug coverage. But Democrats dislike Medicare Advantage’s private-sector nature, and they have some legitimate beefs with its unevenly generous reimbursement rates. This week Mr. Obama told the Washington Post that the program was “a prime example” of his efforts to cut Medicare spending, because he claims people “aren’t getting good value” from it.

That’s not what others say. In January, Oregon’s Democratic Gov. Ted Kulongoski wrote the Obama administration expressing his concern about its efforts “to scale back Medicare Advantage” because the plans “play an important role in providing affordable health coverage.” He noted that 39% of Oregon’s Medicare patients had chosen Medicare Advantage, and that in “some of our Medicare Advantage plans . . . with proper chronic disease management for such conditions as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, hospitalization admission rates have declined.”

The 6 billion in Medicare Advantage cuts over the next decade proposed by Mr. Obama will force many seniors to go back to traditional Medicare at greater expense. A new study for the Florida Association of Health Plans found that because Medicare Advantage plans have richer benefits and lower deductibles and copayments than traditional Medicare, seniors in that state would face dramatically higher payments if forced to give up their Medicare Advantage plans. Cost increases would range from ,214 a year in Jacksonville to ,714 a year in Miami.

There are reasons that Blue Dog Democrats in Congress are leery of their party’s health-care reform plans. Many are in districts or states carried by John McCain, and they worry about the political fallout when these groups realize they will be paying for health-care reform.

They also know that every government entitlement winds up becoming a money pit. In 1965, Sen. Allen Ellender (D., La.) dismissed promises that Medicare would be a modest program to save seniors from bankruptcy. “Let us not be so naïve as to believe that the Medicare program will not be increased from year to year to the point that the government will have to impose more taxes on the little man or else take the necessary money out of the Treasury,” he told colleagues.

Ellender was right, and
Ellender was right, and his warning is even more relevant in our era of skyrocketing deficits and Medicare costs. The only way the House and Senate health plans can pass is if the costs they impose on vulnerable parts of the population continue to be hidden.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203517304574306303720472842.html
What do you think?

Obama will kill entrepreneurial spirit in this country and kill jobs by raising taxes on the 2% (over 800,000) of small businesses that employ over 75% of all small business employees.

Obama will deplete our military by cutting spending. He will also take our nukes off hair-trigger alert and do away with our missile defense systems.

Obama will allow my teenage daughter to walk into an abortion clinic without my consent, stepping on MY rights as a parent to care for my child as I see fit.

Obama will raise the capital gains tax forcing investors to look to other investments other than the stock market. He will also do away with pretax contributions to all 401ks.

Obama will do a litmus test on any and all Supreme Court Justices, sitting only those who share HIS visions.

Obama will kill the coal mine industry by placing fines on them so severe that they will be forced into bankruptcy.

Obama will not DRILL, forcing our continued dependence on foreign oil.

Obama will raise the corporate tax rate forcing large corporations to relocate to other countries who welcome businesses, not punish them.

ETC….ETC….ETC……….

Did I mention Obama is black?

The bail outs are not free market capitalism, that’s fascism to have the government dictate the market.

Don’t tell me it divides the rich and the poor. 50% of the American GDP is from small businesses – Fortune Magazine

Not to mention majority of America is middle class, there are more suburbs then any other form of society in America. Middle class to me sounds balanced, there isn’t a majority of lower or upper class, only a select few in population.

In free market capitalism the consumers dictate what they want to buy, the businesses can’t survive unless they satisfy what the consumer wants to purchase.

With the bail outs the government chose to do ruined the free market, the consumers dictated they don’t want cars from GM, the government intervened and bailed them out. In a free market capitalist system, that company would go out of business, and a more efficient business would move in that territory and do a better job. Bailing out GM will come back to haunt us if it fails again, it will mandate another bail out or bankruptcy.

The banks them selves aren’t truly a free market. They are mandated by the government with so many regulations they lose their freedom to choose what to do. The Community Reinvestment Act which Fannie Mae in 1992 was invested in crashed later at the end of the Bush Term in 2008. That’s 18 years difference in time. Home Mortgage loans take time to pay off. If you give loans to people that have bad credit obviously they’re a hazard to possibly repay it back. Banks where mandated by the government to give out the loans to people that didn’t qualify. Not discrediting banks being greedy they where, but it was the bureaucracy that enabled banks to have bad practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act – Read the History

The regulations banks under went with all the changes and enabling them to give bad loans is the reason we feel this 18 years later. Most peoples home loans take longer then 18 years to pay off. Giving them to people that didn’t qualify makes it even more dangerous, with the housing market devalued the banks got the homes back with a lower value of the origional loan, cooping an even bigger loss since they can’t sell it back.

It’s not free market capitalism to bail out the banks, and it wasn’t free market capitalism for the government to regulate banks on how they distribute home loans. The government made the mess, and it’s the tax payer that suffers. This isn’t free market capitalism. I just want to make sure you realize free market capitalism doesn’t involve government regulation/interference.

If you mention things like the FDA and FCC, those don’t dictate what company’s can sell their product at or anything, that’s for safety purposes, it will effect a company’s cost but they will just push it to the consumer, regulating the cost they put to the consumer will damage their ability to independently function in the free market.

So don’t bash a system you probably know nothing about. It really upsets me people watch Michael Moore’s movie and think that’s capitalism. Bail outs are not Free Market Capitalism, it’s government interference which is fascism.
Sakata Gintoki: Wow you’re pretty ignorant, the people in other countries wouldn’t have jobs in their country if it wasn’t for the US providing them. They would be killing each other and be unproductive. In any state where there is no employment, which can be a country like Somalia or even the great depression. It was and always will be out of order since there is no production, everyone will just kill each other and constantly be at war. There is no wealth generated. When employment happens, production increases causing wealth to be generated, and it’s peaceful. Government housing projects have the highest crime rates in America for a reason that is parallel to unemployment.
crunch: Free Market Capitalism hasn’t existed since FDR, his socialistic ideals make Americans dependent on the government. The more dependent on the government one becomes the less independent they become. Causing them to demand the government takes care of them. This is why we have health care reform, Medicare is costing America too much money each year, Obama is going to end Medicare and merge it with his new plan. It’s going to keep adding to our debt. I’d rather disable all government aid. Not allow doctors to be sued by Lawyers. Then sit back and watch the Doctors compete against each other for patients. There would be so much competition doctors would force each other to lower prices. Just like fast food when McDonalds introduced the dollar menu. Everyone else had to have a value menu because they where getting killed. The consumer will always win.
Sakata Gintoki: Wow you’re a whiny little blamer, do you understand everyone has the free will to choose what to do with their lives? You can’t blame the employer when the employee willingly works there. You can’t blame tobacco companies for people who smoke and get cancer since the individual should of known better. You’re discrediting the individuals right to choose what they want to do. You blame others for the individuals fault and sole choice they made on their own. You can’t blame someone when the individual chose to do it. No one is forcing anyone to work any where, unless it was a totalitarian state and mandates they must. That isn’t the case in Free Market Capitalism. The Employees can picket and not work there, if they picket and they get fired and replaced by others, it obviously tells everyone that the work environment must not be that bad if others still want to work there.
Matthew D: Middle Class is not defined by how much money you have, since the cost of living per state is different. Middle Class homes in So Cal cost 500k, if you took 500k to Alabama you could live in a mansion. The upper class homes here are valued from 900k and up in So Cal. You can’t live in a big house here. It depends on where you live and what the cost of living is. All suburbs are defined as middle class. Government housing projects are lower class, and the upper class are the few rich that live in areas the average person can’t afford. Most homes in America are affordable for the average American depending on which state you are in. Real Estate is about location, saying a value determines middle class is stupid, because 500k in so cal isn’t worth much compared to Alabama. It’s about each location and what the norm is.
AgriCult: I know who George Orwell is, he is an author of a book 1984 which was a prediction of how totalitarianism would spread. I know what his philosophy is. Second I want to say that Hitler was a Fascist, Fascism is two things.

1. The cause of race superiority.
2. The merge of corporations and government

I for one see number 2 clearly happening right now in our American society. 61% of GM is owned by the US Department of Treasury. It’s damaging the system America was built upon. The fore fathers wanted a small government, we are constantly stirring away from it, and I don’t want to have a government that is parallel to the king of England. If the government today owns many companies and the king of England taxed high percentages, what difference does it make. Either way the form of government generates a high revenue through ownership or taxation. I really dislike this, all governments can do is go bankrupt, we see it with the USSR, Nazi Germany, and with us being 11 trill debt.
remmycool: due to lack of comenting space I am allowed I will keep this short. I agree with everything you said, if the world was a free market system America’s value would decrease. I don’t mind that, I am not about superiority of currency, I am for the innovation free market capitalism has offered the world. I love it and it makes every bureaucrat look like a selfish dictator that wants the wealth through taxation.

I agree with your comparison of Zimbabwe and them being millionaires. Of course not everyone can be a millionaire, it would just be inflation and the value would be even more useless. The problem is people see the rich and think that they’re selfish. The belief of that is preposterous since the rich generated that wealth through smart investments. Every society there is a rich class, either a dictatorship/government or the people who choose to make innovative ideas in our democratic republic society. I hate the witch hunts people have on successful people.
Aidan: Well for starters I agree with you that the bail outs saved capitalism since it enables banks to give loans to businesses for what ever purpose they need it for. How ever I disagree that you will believe a government report on a government program they allowed. I see a bias there considering if they disagree with their own intended policy it will make them lose credibility, Americans will lose trust in them and no one would ever want something like this to happen again. To push this point even further look at the cause and effects of other programs.

Social Security’s cause is to allow you to be financially secure by the government past age 65, yet people past 65 still work and aren’t retired.

Welfare sounds nice to help people in poverty, yet those people become dependent on the program and always will be in poverty. There is no incentive to become independent and not depend on the government anymore.

I can go on and on, but I hope you get the point, plus I have no more space
x x: You do realize oil companies face a major restriction by the government of where they can drill. If oil companies could drill any where and have a massive quantity the price of it would lower. Gas would be much cheaper if it was accessable by oil companies to drill any where. The government restricts oil companies to drill any where. So oil companies must buy it from foreign distributors like Canada, and the tariff they pay to ship it here adds to the cost of production. Due to scarcity and the tariff cost, the oil companies pass these burdens to the consumers. Otherwise they would eat a massive loss and go out of business. Again that’s government regulation ruining the free market ability of oil companies drilling where ever they want. Gold is expensive because of the scarcity it holds as a natural resource. Same reason why you won’t pay money for dirt since it is every where it’s so common it doesn’t hold a value.

Unless you just show up at the ER & stick the rest of us w/the costs? You insured folks, are you sticking the rest of us with your Health Care costs when you exceed your illness, yearly, or lifetime caps for those ‘catastrophic’ illnesses? How about you folks that had an illness, lost your jobs, got another and then were denied coverage for preexisting illnesses – are you sticking us too? How about you folks that work for a company ‘to small’ to provide insurance – is your insurance ‘trickling down’ or are you sticking us also? How ;bout you folks that got a major illness and then got dropped – your health care expenses gettin’ trickled down or coming back to us? You folks that are sittin’ there thinking you have ‘good’ insurance, but it only covers a ’smidgen’ of medical expenses when you get sick – will the uncovered costs be ‘trickled down’ by some rich benefactor or are you gonna stick us with the bill? Small Businesses, are you failing to retain/attract good employees because you can’t provide insurance – you are costing us with reduced growth. Are you ‘entrepreneurs’ failing to start your businesses because you will lose your insurance – you are costing us also – stop it! Startup that new idea, build that business, create us jobs, make us competitive in the global market – stop waitng for the trickle – it will probably be something else besides the goodwill of some mythical, rich, benefactor.

And you folks that try to pay your uninsured portions of your medical costs – are we ending up with the bill anyway plus you take a trip to the bankruptcy courts – stickin’ us with still more expense? 50% of bankruptcies are a result of a health related event.

Health costs are 16.5% of our GDP & growing – the single largest segment in our economy. Stop blocking us from managing this segment so we can manage our deficit & debt.

Are our rich ‘benefactors’ trickling your health care down or are you sticking us with your costs?

Enough! So why don’t you sign up & pay your part with our upcoming Health Care program? Get off the side of the 4,000/hr. insurance company CEO’s and onto the side of the people & America.Why should American’s be the only people subject to this kind of extortion? Talk to me.
Would it really be that damaging to ‘just do the right thing’, even if it is to your beneifit? Couldn’t you republicans live with that?

As I recall 50% of the GNP arrives from small businesses.

All big business once was a small business.
(Know your history of Wal*Mart and Costco)

Supply and Demand dictates what businesses must sale which is controlled by the consumer. If the company fails to meet what the consumer wants, the consumer goes to the competitor and the failed company dies.

The Government can’t work with supply and demand, they don’t face bankruptcy, if the program needs more money they tax more. There is no system that allows competition. That’s why you can only go to the DMV, that’s why you will only mail a letter at the US Post Office, that’s why roads are in such poor conditions, that’s why public schools in so-cal can have a 50% drop out rate while private schools rank supreme.

Just compare what is "Public" and what is "Private". Is there really a customers service in public affairs? Probably not because they can’t lose you to another competitor. There is no incentive for the government to try. They are guaranteed in their programs, and don’t have competition.

Even things government enforced like seat belts, where invented by the manufacturer. Once government bureaucrats realize it was effective, they enforced it. Think about where the real innovation come from. Look at Henry Ford’s Model-A, then look at today’s car. That’s free market capitalism. Today the new standard of vehicles is to have GPS. If the competitor has a feature your car doesn’t have, you will want to have it so you don’t lose customers.

These bail outs are not free market capitalism. There is government regulation in banks such as CRA, and other programs. Not to mention bail outs are not ethical to the free market system, since the bad companies die out and the good ones stay, if there isn’t even competition, the new ones will arise to see a profit, the new ones can’t arise if government legislation gives major road blocks.

It’s all about the dictation of what the people want to buy, and what the people want to start as a business. I want anyone to own a business as long as it is the best, it gives the best price, yet I don’t care if it is a small business or a small business. Who cares about the size, Wal*Mart is the best because it has the most choices for the lowest price. If you want to complain about not having Unions, and how they don’t pay their employees much, you must realize you shouldn’t even be shopping there or working there. I’m tired of the double standards, free market capitalism allows you to choose where you want to shop. If it’s so bad boycott it. Considering most don’t it must not be so bad.
Small or a big business** I hate how I make typos. Lol =/
Fakename: so if you want those in power to be rich, you want a communist/socialist system? Who cares if the CEO of a company has more money then a politician. Not to mention Celebrities, Music Artist, Pro Athletes, and other types of careers make more money then politicians. So what who cares. I want a democracy system where we vote in people we want. Not a system where we vote in an official that demands to make more money then someone successful.
Pfo: The idea of saying those that don’t participate don’t get anything is naive. People won’t participate in any society, especially if you give them reasons not to. Canada has had higher unemployment rates then America for a reason. You give people too many accommodations of living, there is less incentive to work and earn it. Handing things out suggests you’re rewarded for nothing, once it is taken away that person expects it. It’s like why would a kid do chores if you hand them 10 dollars a week. Really it defeats the purpose. In a socialistic society everyone is forcefully paying for those who don’t want to contribute. I exclude mentally/physically handicap because they are not able to self serve them self.
brown9500.v10: I’ll take your challenge to call them monopolies. I’ll list all the stores in my town center. Wal*Mart, Ross, Game Stop, Best Buy, Trader Joes, Office Max, Kohls, and everything else are restaurants. It’s a small town I live in so not many stores.

Wal*Mart is in competition with all of them.
When you buy clothes in that town center you can go to Ross, Kohls or Wal*Mart. When you buy electronics you can go to Wal*Mart, Game Stop, or Best Buy. When you want to buy produce like milk you can get it at Wal*Mart or Trader Joes. Need school supplys you can go to Wal*Mart or Office Max.

Wal*Mart sells everything giving more options, it’s not a monopoly. They sell everything, the other small businesses don’t so they don’t compete vs each other. It’s everyone vs Wal*Mart. Wal*Mart sells everything so they are competing with everyone. You need to understand who is selling what. Game Stop and Trader Joes won’t compete because they sell different things. Wal*Mart sells both.
George S: The problem is the government regulations that cripple the free market enterprise system. The banks collapsed due to all the mandates and regulations such as CRA. If I’m a small bank and CRA forces me to give bad loans to people who don’t qualify, and I go bankrupt. The government won’t care, I’m not big to do damage. When a big bank goes bankrupt like Fannie Mae, that’s a huge problem, many are effected, it will put us in a great depression II.

The idea a company can monopolize the market on a free system of no government regulation is impossible. I say so because 1. the consumers dictate what they want to buy, so if they stop buying it, they go out of business and the ethical one they support lives.

2. If there is an industry in the free market system and there is 1 company selling product-A. Someone will figure a way to manufacture it and jump in on that market. If I am wrong, then why did Henry Ford have competition in the automobile industry when he invented productA
Badger Fan: We have a government that upholds laws. Keeps order. I don’t care about that, it doesn’t damage the free market system, unless you tried to privatize the police force. Keeping order is fine. I am speaking of economic freedom, not freedom of what people can/can’t do like murder. That’s not up to the free market system. I support capitalism with a democracy, as long as the democracy doesn’t tap into the capitalistic economy. Right now it is happening and I can not stand it. They suffocate the private industry’s with their legislation causing them to go bankrupt, and the government bails them out because the government is responsible for their failure. If the government never regulated it, it wouldn’t need to require bail outs. We wouldn’t have an issue, the consumers would still choose what they want. No tax dollars wasted.

It is not Socialism, don’t let anybody mislead you folks. In this time and era, seeing our economy plunge there is only one way out. When even the big and rich corporates are going bankruptcy there will be no hope for small businesses and middle class life. It is a fact. So, I don’t think there is anything wrong to bail out the poor first, so they can have a chance to start their life too. This is how small businesses start, borrowing a loan either from a bank or credit union. The only difference is, this time this small business starters will get that money from the Fed, by taxing the MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR corporates to fund small businesses. Everyone is a winner.

What do you think?
The International Rescue Committee already offers such a program, and it is so effective that it helps refugees start their own businesses.
This question is a question regarding corporate taxation, not personal taxation to fund others.

Don’t get it mixed it up.

obama admits he plans on taxing oil companies. even more. this will cause gas prices to go up. and when gas prices go up, so does almost everything else (because of the the increased price of shipping)
then after that he’s going to tax small businesses causing them to have to declare bankruptcy or lay off workers. hurting the economy even further
it seems to me that the way obama has said it, his plan seems great. but to me it seems that his plan isn’t going to work. plz don’t say your an idiot, simply state what you think would happen from his plan. if im wrong about my facts, then simply state what was wrong.

Is there a way to hold them accountable for the continued increase of uninsured Americans, increase in family bankruptcies due to health costs, and closure of small businesses due to double digit health insurance costs?
While it is nice to pretend things are OK with our current system, everyone knows it is slowly strangling our economy and our individual abilities to support our families.

What should be done to hold republicans responsible if they succeed in continuing this dangerous trend?

In both the US and Canada, many politicians such as Barack Hussein Obama and others are pushing to raise the minimum wage. They have to be very ignorant of economics to believe that min wage increases will benefit the poor! At the same time they continue to impose income taxes on the poor.

Here’s what raising min wage would do:
-It would cause inflation. Businesses will not renounce their profits. If wages are forced up, they will raise prices. As we all know, supermarkets pay min wage to their employees, so any raise to the min wage will push food prices up.
-It will push small businesses to bankruptcy. A high min wage is irrelevant if you lose your job.
-It will destroy job opportunities for teenagers by making employers less likely to hire them. This will create a need for subsidized summer job programs – thus a raise in taxes.
-It will disproportionately hurt those making the or just above the new minimum wage. Suppose someone makes , and the min wage is hiked from to . The person who was already making that wage will not be raised and will be gouged by price increases.
-Landlords will take the opportunity to raise rents knowing that some people will have a few extra bucks to live on.

Teenagers working part-time jobs don’t need a raise. Those in need of a raise are the few unlucky ones who never manage to rise above those entry-level positions and find themselves on minimum wage for their entire lives. And guess what – they are being forced to pay income tax!

In the US, a full-time min wage worker has to pay 42 in Social Security and Medicare taxes, as well as 7 in federal income tax, plus the state income tax (if there is one). Wouldn’t it be better to exempt minimum wage workers from these taxes before asking businesses to pay more?

In Canada it’s even worse, in the best province (British Columbia) min wage workers pay around 00 in income/payroll taxes, and in Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces, that number get over 00.

Governments have also invented "overtime pay" – the best way to keep the poor in poverty! While workers may be willing to work more than 40 hours, the law says they can’t unless the employer is willing to pay more. As minimum wge employers usually do not want to pay overtime, that law prevents anyone from being able to work more and improve ther situation.

So here’s what I suggest:
-Abolish the minimum wage, or at least stop raising it.
-Abolish overtime pay.
-Abolish Social Security, Medicare, Canada Pension Plan, and Employment Insurance.
-Abolish the income tax, or at least exempt those under the poverty line from it.

To help the poor, we must deregulate, not regulate.

Do you agree with that?

i did today. what he told me is..
if obama gets into office sell your small business because the policies he is talking about initiating is going to send all small businesses into bankruptcy. the amount of money that is going to be required to meet his policies is unimaginable and if you do not accommodate his proposals he is going to fine you. what the fine is is not defined as of yet but it will be over and above the amount it will cost you to accommodate his new policies. so you can say good bye to all the small businesses in america. so if you work in a small business you better be ready. get your bills caught up and get as much saved as you can. you will be unemployed.

just consider this thought.

You have been recently hired to the Florida Virtual Water Management Board. As a new member your first task is to consider if your community should construct a dam. The purpose of the dam is to increase the community water resources for the growing population and lift current water restrictions that are in effect. The dam will also provide the community a cost efficient method to generate electricity; however, these benefits come with a high environmental and economic cost. By constructing the dam, you will destroy local ecosystems and drive some small businesses to bankruptcy.

keep the following question in mind,As you weigh these factors.

Do the needs of a community outweigh future environmental and economic consequences?

If you are pro dam construction, discuss why the needs of the community are more important than the environmental and economical consequences that will be incurred,OR, If you are against the construction of the dam, discuss why the environment should be considered more highly and offer some alternatives for increasing water resources.

Congratulations! You have been recently hired to the Florida Virtual Water Management Board. As a new member your first task is to consider if your community should construct a dam. The purpose of the dam is to increase the community water resources for the growing population and lift current water restrictions that are in effect. The dam will also provide the community a cost efficient method to generate electricity; however, these benefits come with a high environmental and economic cost. By constructing the dam, you will destroy local ecosystems and drive some small businesses to bankruptcy.

If you are pro dam construction, discuss why the needs of the community are more important than the environmental and economical consequences that will be incurred.

If you are against the construction of the dam, discuss why the environment should be considered more highly and offer some alternatives for increasing water resources.

Do Wal-Mart’s business practices raise or lower our standard-of-living? Quality of Life?

Is Wal-Mart’s business strategy fair?
I think of Wal-Mart the same way I think of Microsoft…I call it Monopoly,

1–Their business strategies unfair, however I do not disagree with their practices, but I do disagree the way the government handle both companies.

2–"The Standard of living refers to the quality and quantity of goods and services available to people" (Not to be confused with Quality of Life)

3– Wal-Mart offers convenience, a variety of selection, low prices for the people and bankruptcy for small, independent Small businesses who can’t compete with Wal-Mart’s Prices.
Keep in Mind that by Wal-mart Forcing Manufactures to sell them at lower price to provide customers with a lower price, Manufactures are now taking the Jobs Overseas, Living thousands of unemployed North Americans.

does anyone know if a statistical record exists showing how many small businesses filed for bankruptcy annually(nationwide)?
im curious to see how clinton’s high corporate/income taxes have helped make gods out of small businesses, and how bush’s tax breaks have resurrected stalin and brought back gulags for capitalist sympathizers. look how high the dow is, around 14000? how terrible. and 4.5% unemployment? we need mr. carter to come back and help us get inflation and unemployment back to double digits again. i dont think even billy can get them back up again.