Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nether. The Republican side only care about rich people or whatever is best for the businesses. Democrats on the hand are more about illegal aliens and abortion. All in all, Republicans do better on social issues but not so much on economic ones. Democrats are a bit better on economic stuff but don't do so well regarding social issues.
The Dems are actually the party of the rich, the R's are the party of the middle class and small business. People who want to start their own business should ask yourself, are you more likely to become a mega business or a small business? The SBA does nothing, that's why most small business owners end up using credit cards or second mortgages to start up.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,604,784 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
The Dems are actually the party of the rich, the R's are the party of the middle class and small business. People who want to start their own business should ask yourself, are you more likely to become a mega business or a small business? The SBA does nothing, that's why most small business owners end up using credit cards or second mortgages to start up.
The Dems are actually the party of the rich, the R's are the party of the middle class and small business. People who want to start their own business should ask yourself, are you more likely to become a mega business or a small business? The SBA does nothing, that's why most small business owners end up using credit cards or second mortgages to start up.
Such a general statement!
Let's break some of this down....
1. A small business these days is one with up to 500 employees. Silicon Valley, Boston, SoCal and NYC are full of businesses with VASTLY fewer employees...who choose to start businesses.
The definitely of small business is variable.
2. The Wal-Marts of the world have killed "small business" - that is, the entire downtowns of many places. The Waltons are Right Wingers, from the South who are heavily Republican and lobby for reduced taxes on THEM ONLY (not regular mom and pop, as only the Waltons would owe these particular taxes....Fed inheritance, etc.).
3. Small business that is in the resource extraction and pollution industries should prefer the GOP - unless they have a conscience. The GOP will allow them to screw up things more.
4. Small Business in the "develop at any cost without the infrastructure to hold it" - such as many Realtors, etc - that type of person would favor the GOP. After all, it's cheaper to dump chit in the rivers than it is to property process it (development in Florida, as an example)....
The truly innovative businesses that are driving American forward are mostly not GOP based. Genetics, medicine, tech, etc......in fact, only 6% of Scientists ID as Republicans.
Combine that with the destruction of Main Streets and Mom and Pop stores by the Waltons and then the Home Depots (owned by a Right Wing family also)....and I think you see a trend.
Republicans are no friend of those small businesses. They may be a friend of the wildcatter.
I think this is a very interesting and thought-provoking question. I am not even going to vote, as I see pros and cons to both sides.
Safety nets are needed for the short-term. Most people would agree with this. But when one is incentivized to NOT work, obviously that is a problem. The only experience I have personally with this notion is some low-level, part-time employees who worked in my department several years ago. They absolutely did not want to be full-time. If I needed them to stay even a couple extra hours or come in an extra day, they would never, ever agree to it. If they earned any more wages than their usual, their benefits would be cut. That kind of de-incentivization is horribly wrong.
Sometimes, even doing a good thing short-term can be bad long-term. Right now I am looking for a puppy. I want to avoid a puppy mill type of breeder at all costs. And it's sad because the puppies born in a puppy mill need a home. But to buy one perpetuates the problem of these poor female dogs being tightly penned up their entire lives, being forced to deliver litter after litter. Maybe a weird analogy, but I think it's relevant to the poverty issue, in terms of short term vs long term help.
Republicans are frequently criticized for corporate welfare. But companies are going to go to the state that is the highest bidder. If they can't get the tax breaks they want in one state, they'll move to another. If they cant get the tax breaks they want anywhere in the US, they'll just move their HQ elsewhere. And then the US loses jobs and that raises unemployment.
Regardless of party, I wish both sides would support:
Education and job training
Birth control, and even require long term BC in order to be eligible for long term public assistance
Incentivize working, not NOT working
Cut wasteful spending (I know that is vague, but I believe the belt could be tightened.)
Both are mostly lip service. But Democrats for sure. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics of how gutting health care and cutting taxes on the rich is good for the poor.
But companies are going to go to the state that is the highest bidder. If they can't get the tax breaks they want in one state, they'll move to another. If they cant get the tax breaks they want anywhere in the US, they'll just move their HQ elsewhere. And then the US loses jobs and that raises unemployment.
No business looking for serious talent is going to leave the USA, no matter what the tax circumstances are.
Both are mostly lip service. But Democrats for sure. I'd like to see the mental gymnastics of how gutting health care and cutting taxes on the rich is good for the poor.
How is forcing other people at gunpoint to pay for your medical expenses is in anyway moral, just and fair?
No business looking for serious talent is going to leave the USA, no matter what the tax circumstances are.
Hmmm, I thought a lot of companies moved out of the US. Maybe I misstated by saying they would move their HQ. Certainly a lot of manufacturing facilities have closed in the states to go elsewhere.
My point is that some "corporate welfare" seems necessary as that is just how the game is played. Isn't this part of the "trickle down" theory? Help businesses succeed, and give tax breaks, so they can keep hiring more people? I admit that economics is not my strong suit. I'm here to learn.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
