Wonder why there is no job creation? These type people vote!

[TheBlueVue 177]

I asked my bank for a loan so that I could expand my business. My banker told me, "We aint given no business loans till that Obama aint President no more. What are you, one of them libtards?"

Tried to get a loan lately? I love how you've taken on this embecilic persona as if you're somehow discrediting that which you're ridiculing but in reality you're simply acting l like an asinine twit

[homersapien 12,172]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

Au contraire. I am open to even theoretical arguments about the effect of either (Obamacare or uncertain tax policy) on new business development.

How could Obamacare prevent a new business start-up, even in theory?

How could tax policy "uncertainty" prevent a new business start-up?

I can think of reasons for the latter in the case of removing an existing or proposed tax incentive (such as for solar power for example), but I am guessing that is not what the OP had in mind.

I could be wrong, but I assumed the OP was talking about general tax policies rather than targeted incentives. Of course there is uncertainty in future tax policy. There is uncertainty in the future period. But no one backs off from a new business venture based solely on that. If they do, the business plan was incredibly weak or problematic to begin with.

[homersapien 12,172]

I asked my bank for a loan so that I could expand my business. My banker told me, "We aint given no business loans till that Obama aint President no more. What are you, one of them libtards?"

Tried to get a loan lately? I love how you've taken on this embecilic persona as if you're somehow discrediting that which you're ridiculing but in reality you're simply acting l like an asinine twit

I like it too. It's funny. (At least coming from ICHY.)

But it's also a little sad in that it's not all that exaggerated. After all, the only thing he's tinkering with is the grammer. He's cribbing the substance straight-up.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

I asked my bank for a loan so that I could expand my business. My banker told me, "We aint given no business loans till that Obama aint President no more. What are you, one of them libtards?"

Tried to get a loan lately? I love how you've taken on this embecilic persona as if you're somehow discrediting that which you're ridiculing but in reality you're simply acting l like an asinine twit

I just wanted to fit in. You know, be a part of the "in crowd". :'(

[TheBlueVue 177]

I asked my bank for a loan so that I could expand my business. My banker told me, "We aint given no business loans till that Obama aint President no more. What are you, one of them libtards?"

Tried to get a loan lately? I love how you've taken on this embecilic persona as if you're somehow discrediting that which you're ridiculing but in reality you're simply acting l like an asinine twit

I just wanted to fit in. You know, be a part of the "in crowd". :'(

You and homer fit together like hand and glove but, clearly, I realize you're no democrat.....LMAO

[AUisAll 2]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

[homersapien 12,172]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

[AUisAll 2]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

No insults needed. People can read this thread and make their own decisions on whether or not someone has any idea what they are they talking about.

[homersapien 12,172]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

No insults needed. People can read this thread and make their own decisions on whether or not someone has any idea what they are they talking about.

Exactly. Glad you have come to realize that.

[AUisAll 2]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

No insults needed. People can read this thread and make their own decisions on whether or not someone has any idea what they are they talking about.

Exactly. Glad you have come to realize that.

And hopefully one day you will realize that liberalism is a sign of a mental disorder.

[homersapien 12,172]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

No insults needed. People can read this thread and make their own decisions on whether or not someone has any idea what they are they talking about.

Exactly. Glad you have come to realize that.

And hopefully one day you will realize that liberalism is a sign of a mental disorder.

So do you normally insult the mentally ill?

[AUisAll 2]

Of course you don't believe him....it doesn't fit your narrative.

Well, it certainly doesn't ring with truth. Do you think so?

Do you really think a new business venture would be cancelled because of Obamacare or "uncertainty" about future tax policy?

If the forecasters think so then yes, it's possible. There's a lot at stake for these companies in regards to the trojan horse called ObamaScare.

I'm not the person to ask in reality but it would take a hit in the head with an answer from someone you agree before you'd believe it.

What the clueless don't understand is companies that have 45-55 employees have some extremely difficult desions to make. Especially one that has 52 employees. Should they expand and add 3-12 more employees or be conservative (some would call smart) and put that venture off and get down to 48 employees and wait and see what the long term effect will be.

The clueless also don't realize that some company owners that pay their taxes directly off a K1 have to consider the progressive tax brackets.

And how to handle employee insurance benefits is also a concern.

But like most that have never walked the walk, they have no problem 'attempting' to talk the talk despite the fact that display ther ignorance while doing so,

So apparently, we've changed the discussion from the general effect of Obamacare and uncertainty on new business start-ups to the effect on companies who employ 50 or more employees who are looking to expand.

If the company in question already provides health insurance to it's employees, nothing will change if they expand under the same policy. (Except that they can possibly reduce their insurance coverage since their employees will have another option under the exchange.)

If the company chooses not to provide healthcare - or cease providing healthcare - they may reach the threshold of having to pay the government a $750 penalty per employee for not doing so (which would undoubtedly be a lot cheaper than providing them health insurance.

So, bottom line, Obamacare would affect only those companies of 50+ employees who don't want to provide their employees healthcare. And even then, the penalty is much smaller than providing healthcare and not something that should, from a strictly business standpoint, prevent them from expanding.

I just don't see that as a major factor in reducing business expansion. And it certainly wouldn't effect new start-ups.

And let's not forget the status quo ante. The rising costs of healthcare insurance already and increasingly served to dampen expansion plans involving additional hires.

But for the record, I would support modifications that would further divorce the employers from providing healthcare at all. I don't see it as something they should be expected to do. I feel the same way about corporate income tax. It should be eliminated for similar reasons.

(Please insert the appropriate insults above if you miss them.)

No insults needed. People can read this thread and make their own decisions on whether or not someone has any idea what they are they talking about.

Exactly. Glad you have come to realize that.

And hopefully one day you will realize that liberalism is a sign of a mental disorder.

So do you normally insult the mentally ill?

Only when they promote (with lies,etc) an anti-American agenda. And I'm only trying to help those affected.