tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 We are getting off topic here from the purpose of the thread. But, my point in the questions was simply about the thought that someone who owns and runs a large successful business in Nebraska is automatically a bad choice for Governor. Seems kind of odd to me...but...hey....everyone has their criteria to look at. I just think that's a horrible criteria for choosing a policymaker. Knowing how to run a successful business has very little to do with knowing how to deal with the economy at a macro level, with knowing the challenges facing education, with understanding healthcare policy and the reasons why reform was needed and what we still need to do to improve it. Saying something is one thing, of course he is going to say he wants to grow jobs and grow the economy and lower taxes and lower spending and I'm a good Christian who respects the sanctity of life. It all sounds good. But you have to realize that his policies are going to have the opposite effect - lowering taxes does not grow the economy or create jobs; it exacerbates inequality and handcuffs the ability of the government to provide the type of jobs and services that will help the middle class directly and indirectly. Reducing spending almost never cuts waste; it comes at the expense of police and fire departments, teachers, infrastructure. He says a lot of stuff that sounds good, and he has had success by being a businessman. But his platform, when you look at it, is a typical conservative buzzword BS pile, and it will benefit him personally. I don't judge people by what they say, because you can say any damn thing. I'll judge based on his views and his policy. When his policy happens to overlap with his money, well, sorry. He's not good for Nebraska. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Just wanna say, I don't have much to add to threads like this, but I love reading tschu's and BRB's conversations. Very level-headed and informative, good job guys. I like Buster. Smart guy, fun to discuss stuff with. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I don't even know that Ricketts is being intentionally misleading; maybe he truly believes that lower taxes, lower spending, something something about growth, repeal Obamacare, no Medicaid for you is best for Nebraska. But if he truly believes this; that's even worse. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 We are getting off topic here from the purpose of the thread. But, my point in the questions was simply about the thought that someone who owns and runs a large successful business in Nebraska is automatically a bad choice for Governor. Seems kind of odd to me...but...hey....everyone has their criteria to look at. I just think that's a horrible criteria for choosing a policymaker. Knowing how to run a successful business has very little to do with knowing how to deal with the economy at a macro level, with knowing the challenges facing education, with understanding healthcare policy and the reasons why reform was needed and what we still need to do to improve it. Saying something is one thing, of course he is going to say he wants to grow jobs and grow the economy and lower taxes and lower spending and I'm a good Christian who respects the sanctity of life. It all sounds good. But you have to realize that his policies are going to have the opposite effect - lowering taxes does not grow the economy or create jobs; it exacerbates inequality and handcuffs the ability of the government to provide the type of jobs and services that will help the middle class directly and indirectly. Reducing spending almost never cuts waste; it comes at the expense of police and fire departments, teachers, infrastructure. He says a lot of stuff that sounds good, and he has had success by being a businessman. But his platform, when you look at it, is a typical conservative buzzword BS pile, and it will benefit him personally. I don't judge people by what they say, because you can say any damn thing. I'll judge based on his views and his policy. When his policy happens to overlap with his money, well, sorry. He's not good for Nebraska. Now you are talking about policy which is more than just...."he is rich and owns a big business so he is bad". I look at it as I like a wide range of people in government. I like people with experience in education to be there to be experts in that area. I like people from the medical industry to be there to be experts in that. I like lawyers (choked saying that) to be there to be experts in law. And...I like successful business people to be there to be experts in that. I think we aren't as successful in governing as we can be if we don't have input from these various groups (and I'm sure I'm missing some). In general, I don't look at successful business people as these horrible greedy people only out for themselves that some people do. Now...some are. But, many aren't even though they are looked at as that way. But...hey...that's just me. PS....I think the most worthless person in government is someone who has done nothing but get elected and live off the system. They have very little real life experience to know what their policies do on the other side. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I'll agree with that. It's more the bad policy lining up with his personal situation that exacerbates why I am so anti-Ricketts. He is a businessman who wants to get into politics (has tried before too, thank you Ben Nelson), and his policies A) aren't good and B) just happen to benefit him personally. It's a Venn Diagram that I want to run far away from. 2 Link to comment
strigori Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 I find it helpful to have someone in office that knows what struggles specifically Nebraska companies have and possible fixes for that. Grow more businesses means more jobs. So, if you meet someone who has been extremely successful in a family business you automatically have a negative attitude towards them? I'm going to have a VERY negative opinion of anyone picking up endorsements from Palin and Cruz. So he either believes the crazy that comes from those two fools, or he's openly pandering to the tea party faction for votes. There is a giant difference between 'grow a business' and 'make a business more profitable' and Ricketts is only looking at the later. That's his background. And increased stock prices have zero baring on creating jobs. If that were the case unemployment would be at an all time low, and wages would not be stuck at rates from over a decade ago. Are you saying Ameritrade hasn't grown? I must be one of those evil business owners/managers also. In 2007 I laid off 1/3 of our work force. I know one thing, I wouldn't still be in business if I hadn't done that. We are back to being profitable but I haven't brought back on most of those jobs. It's just a fact in today's business environment. Our sales are much less than in 2007. We are more profitable and employ a lot fewer people. Now, do I wish my business was back to selling at the pre 2007 levels...hell yes as long as we can do it profitably. But, that just isn't the case right now. This is the way many many businesses are working right now. They are related. Businesses are paying out giant bonuses, and raises to the execs and board members, while the rank and file tend to make the same, or often, less than they did in 2007. Especially when you factor in cost rises in pretty much every aspect of living. If you, and other business owners, want to get back to 2007 levels of sales, then wages need to go up. I don't want to hear about record profitability and stock prices, then get a blood from a stone routine when talking about pay raises for employees. And selecting a businessman who wants to institute policy that further hurts those that are needed to grow an economy is counterproductive. The tea party ilk he has been endorsed by are the ones that say things like a min wage hurt business, because paying someone $7.25 and hour is just too much. TD Ameritrade makes money often by taking jobs away from people. One of those attack ads out there does show Ricketts had 900 people laid off, then took a bonus for the efforts. 1 Link to comment
tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lest we end up like New Jersey. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5699572/chris-christies-tax-cut-plan-would-have-been-a-disaster Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lest we end up like New Jersey. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5699572/chris-christies-tax-cut-plan-would-have-been-a-disaster Sort of not going to happen in Nebraska with the balanced budget requirement. 1 Link to comment
strigori Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lest we end up like New Jersey. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5699572/chris-christies-tax-cut-plan-would-have-been-a-disaster Sort of not going to happen in Nebraska with the balanced budget requirement. That could actually make things worse, as it would force immense cuts across the board,including services that we should not be cutting. Link to comment
tschu Posted May 9, 2014 Share Posted May 9, 2014 Lest we end up like New Jersey. http://www.vox.com/2014/5/9/5699572/chris-christies-tax-cut-plan-would-have-been-a-disaster Sort of not going to happen in Nebraska with the balanced budget requirement. Good point! True. That could actually make things worse, as it would force immense cuts across the board,including services that we should not be cutting. Also true...although perhaps that will be self-limiting as it'll make the crazy tax cutters think a little bit Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Interesting article. Should Obamacare get rid of employer mandate? If I didn't have to provide health insurance I could give the average employee in our company around a 15% pay increase and I would gladly do it if I didn't have to deal with it and they were able to go get affordable health care on the exchange. Link to comment
carlfense Posted May 12, 2014 Author Share Posted May 12, 2014 Interesting article. Should Obamacare get rid of employer mandate? If I didn't have to provide health insurance I could give the average employee in our company around a 15% pay increase and I would gladly do it if I didn't have to deal with it and they were able to go get affordable health care on the exchange. I've been saying that for awhile . . . (does your company employ more than 50 people?) Sure. Let's talk about fixing the parts of the law that need improvement. I'd start with getting rid of the employer mandate entirely. It's unnecessary and might carry some significant consequences for around 1% of the workforce. Link to comment
ZRod Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Interesting article. Should Obamacare get rid of employer mandate? If I didn't have to provide health insurance I could give the average employee in our company around a 15% pay increase and I would gladly do it if I didn't have to deal with it and they were able to go get affordable health care on the exchange. So for you it's not worth it having the non taxable health insurance? Just curious. Link to comment
Recommended Posts