Helping Small Businesses Grow and Create New Jobs

May 20th, 2010 | by admin |

President Obama visits Buffalo, NY where he speaks to business owners and workers about the steps the Administration is taking to create conditions that will allow small businesses to thrive and hire new workers. May 13, 2010.

Duration : 0:43:22


[youtube dumPOvm2-gA]

  1. 25 Responses to “Helping Small Businesses Grow and Create New Jobs”

  2. By bnjones28 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    LOOK UP NEGROID IN …
    LOOK UP NEGROID IN METAPEDIA

  3. By timefordifference on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    The new healthcare …
    The new healthcare law is fatally flawed , The recent report from the Obama Administrations Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which confirmed the healthcare bill will increase costs and cause 14 million Americans to lose employer-sponsored coverage, was yet another indication the new health law is not going to work as intended. What an achievement, they should be very proud of screwing over the American people. Next time please use KY-Jelly. Vote them all out!

  4. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @ilms98
    But if you …
    @ilms98
    But if you prefer to make this an argument of philosophies
    It is the difference between those who earn wealth directing that wealth and those who take wealth from those who have earned it and directing it in their own self interest irregardless of the interest of those who created the wealth.

  5. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @ilms98
    Of course …
    @ilms98
    Of course gov expenditure can affect GDP.
    It is simply not measurable.
    Gov does not produce.
    There is no reasonable means to measure what is not produced by industry because resources were diverted to government expenditures.
    This is not a philosophical argument. It’s an argument directly related to property rights and honestly accounting for government takings. Government expenditure purchases a portion of GDP, it doesn’t create a portion of GDP.

  6. By ilms98 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg Now …
    @maskedphrogg Now if your comment on my inability to arrive at rational conclusion was pointed at my view on social welfare and the role of government, I believe you and I should both acknowledge that these different views stems from our philosophical differences; you have reached your rational conclusion based on your ideology, where as I’ve done the same based on mine.

  7. By ilms98 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg Fit …
    @maskedphrogg Fit in where?
    Pardon me if I misunderstood you, but you sounded like you still disagree on notion that government expenditure has influence on GDP. As I mentioned in my previous comments, how the government use the money collected via taxation and how much it uses (save, or borrow by selling T-bonds) will affect GDP. I really don’t see how learning public finance would hinder my effort to arrive at “rational conclusions and be able to reliably predict economic outcome”

  8. By CapoBallin on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @daderone In the …
    @daderone In the same token, please spare the rest of us your ignorant rant(s) then. Commenting on matters you clearly cannot comprehend nor have the acumen to debate. Thanks.

  9. By asperin on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @daderone

    You are …
    @daderone

    You are the only one who has failed in Economics by ignoring its most important and evident law, Supply and Demand.
    What can I say but keep repeating myself?
    You just fear a free market because your Shitsrael wont be able to rob the US to fund itself.
    More people are learning about the free market each day, we are converting them, waking them up.

  10. By daderone on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    simply put u have …
    simply put u have no real ability to comprehend modern political science, economics or sociology. Its sad but I have entertained your ignorance and idiocy for long enough. I wish I could pretend to care how wrong u r or that you don’t seem to get it. I don’t maybe someone else will spoon feed you the truth like they did the ideological rhetoric you so easily regurgitate.

  11. By daderone on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @asperin you really …
    @asperin you really have your head in your on economics and seriously I am not going to waste my time trying to pretend like someone who promotes the invisible hand fallacy is someone i can logic with. Its economics 101 and you fail horribly.

  12. By daderone on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @CapoBallin i’m …
    @CapoBallin i’m sure you’ve slept thru quite a lot. Please spare me the generalized rant on marxist philosophy. thanks.

  13. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg LOL. …
    @maskedphrogg LOL. What regime? The oil companies do whatever they want. They cut corners. They faked tests. They went ahead with the pumping process when they failed the pressure tests. You wait and see if BP doesn’t try and stick us with the bill. Their already pointing fingers at Haliburton and Transocean.

  14. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @joshuag5732
    It’s …
    @joshuag5732
    It’s already Business as usual. The kind of (monkey)business you have been promoting for days in just this thread. A regulatory regime under color of Law administered by an omnipotent government. Why are you so unhappy with the logical and inevitable results of getting what you wanted?

  15. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg It’s …
    @maskedphrogg It’s not like we could have left things the way they were in Iraq. I mean as soon as we leave the government will fall apart, but we had to at least try and salvage the situation.

    The oil companies are not nor have they ever been regulated. Every agency that deals with them has been bought off. The liability remains with them. They’re going to lose a lot of money for this disaster, but not enough so that they change their policies. I am for regulation but REAL regulation.

  16. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg I …
    @maskedphrogg I didn’t suggest that BP dumped the oil on purpose. The only thing that BP cares about is the oil. When they finally get that geyser capped they’ll clean up what they can get and leave the rest to soak into the ground. They’ll dodge lawsuits fro the next 20 years or so from people whose lives and businesses have been ruined and then it will be business as usual.

  17. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    Not to mention your …
    Not to mention your foolish suggestion that BP intended to dump 100’s of thousands of gallons of raw crude into the sea rather than into tanker ships to be sold in global markets.
    No, you will continue to believe BP wanted it to happen or doesn’t care that it happened irregardless of the fact that BP will suffer the most from the incident.

  18. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @joshuag5732
    …
    @joshuag5732
    waaaaaa!
    Cry on someone else’s shoulder. Your guy Obama has done less than nothing with regard to wasting valuable resources in waging undeclared wars. But you partisan types consider hypocrisy a valued friend and not a shameful vice.
    Regards the oil spill in the Gulf, I thought you fools wanted government regulation? This is the kind of incident that is the natural result of removing liability from private actors and settling it on government agencies. No one held responsible.

  19. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg I …
    @maskedphrogg I would not and did not want to invest in the Iraq war but we did it. Green energy isn’t as destructive as say…4 million gallons of oil in the gulf coast and eleven dead oil rig operators.

  20. By asperin on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @daderone

    …
    @daderone

    Prostitution and drugs sell because people just sell them or because there is demand?
    The consumers, decide what sells and what doesn’t. A basic law of economics that you deny.
    Come on. On thing is disagreeing another is denying something so evident like Supply and Demand.

    We never had true free market in America you are ignoring history, or lying about it.
    Economic corruption arises from State intervention and participation.
    Political power is purchasable.

  21. By asperin on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @daderone

    “We …
    @daderone

    “We don’t need someone trying to squeeze an overhead of 10cents on every nickel to regulate safety of goods”

    And you think the FDA is free?
    Do you think is cost efficient?

    The “invisible hand of the market” is a reality hence why things sell or don’t.

  22. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @joshuag5732
    So …
    @joshuag5732
    So what?
    You’re wrong.
    Gov investment in so called “green” energy (for the most part it is not amicable but destructive of natural environments though popular claims say otherwise) is an investment in particular private entities with the funds taken from individuals who would not otherwise make such investments. A morally repugnant notion that also takes investment capital away from projects that likely would resolve energy production needs. If green worked it would be profitable.

  23. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg I …
    @maskedphrogg I think we should invest in the development of green energy the way we invest in the military. The military doesn’t produce anything, but it’s essential for our national defense.

    On a side note: Huge multi-million dollar corporations are more trouble than their worth. Most of the jobs they provide are going overseas now anyway. I really don’t see why they should have lower taxes.

  24. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @joshuag5732
    sure, …
    @joshuag5732
    sure, cause it never takes more employees to make more product.
    Idiot.
    I wish my snide rebuttal earlier had shut down this thread now.
    No you self serving fool. Investment in unprofitable ventures does not magically make them profitable any more than rewarding ppl for simply existing make those ppl productive. Work may not be a reward unto itself but it’s a good starting place for earning wealth.

  25. By joshuag5732 on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @maskedphrogg Lower …
    @maskedphrogg Lower taxes on the wealthy means that there is less money for programs that help people overcome poverty. There’s less spending on infrastructure as well which means fewer jobs and more roads, schools and bridges that are falling apart. The country needs to invest in green energy and get high speed internet hooked up for all. The trend for corporations when they have extra money is to invest in their own companies so they can make more money as opposed to hiring more workers.

  26. By maskedphrogg on May 20, 2010 | Reply

    @joshuag5732
    I …
    @joshuag5732
    I knew that, at least my reply wasn’t so snide it shut down the conversation.
    Perhaps punishment is too strong a word. I don’t believe it is. Taxing authority can lead to punitive takings. I see no one promoting low rates for the rich. What I do see is ne’er do wells promoting punitive rates be put upon those of substantial wealth.
    What does tax rates on the wealthy have to do with a shrinking middle class? We should quit punishing the middle class too eh?

Post a Comment