3 ms·

Honestly, everyone reading the WSJ knows how math works. The point of the article was not to explain math - it was to blame "government" - and Barack Obama - fo

Honestly, everyone reading the WSJ knows how math works. The point of the article was not to explain math - it was to blame "government" - and Barack Obama - for the lack of private hiring. A political statement gets (and deserves) a political response.

CoryMathews 16y ago
When its government taxes that are causing it to be so expensive why would you blame someone else? Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount. Which is dumb. First, because he buys his health care form a private company, and second, because he's not required to buy it at all.
jbooth 16y ago
Additionally, the article's author gave no indication that he knew how arithmetic works. Round number from memory, paying someone 59k, gov't takes 20k, and healthcare costs 12k, so everything is 100% government's fault. And Obama's fault. Even though he cut the taxes for that employee. EDIT: Hi downmodders. 100% factual post here. Obama cut your taxes. Sorry.
DanielBMarkham 16y ago
Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point. It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring. When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those things on his balance sheet are wonderful goodness from above. Assume he's a bigoted moron. Whatever works for you. Numbers still add together to make totals. And people make decisions (and form opinions) based on those numbers. Arguing about his politics doesn't change any of that. You can't argue yourself into a profit margin. Next year there will be a new pet cause and a new item on the balance sheet. Maybe these are all great things, maybe the inmates are running the asylum. Probably a great discussion for somewhere else. None of that political stuff is relevant here, no matter how strongly you feel about it. This is the cost of doing business, and this is why he is not hiring. It would have been an entirely different piece without the numbers, but the numbers are true indicators of the nature of his business decision. Ignoring them or having a snit about them is just so much noise.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Did you read the linked article? The guy's business is in the tank. He wouldn't be hiring if the government paid him to hire. Which they might, actually, via tax credits under certain circumstances, I'm not too up on that stuff. The guy's numbers were ridiculous. The changes to his cash flow, year over year, regarding employees, are dominated by healthcare costs. That's not a government problem (although it arguably should be). To the extent that his cash flow is affected by taxes, Obama cut them. No wonder he can't run a business.
  - DanielBMarkham 16y ago
    sigh
    - jbooth 16y ago
      You're saying that we should ignore his political affiliations and focus on the numbers he presented. I'm saying the numbers he presented don't add up to the point he was making unless you add them up totally wrong -- and the point he's making is manifestly political and has nothing to do with anyone's business reality.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]

CoryMathews 16y ago

When its government taxes that are causing it to be so expensive why would you blame someone else? Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount.

run4yourlives 16y ago
Also he is only blaming Obama for the health care price raise not the previous amount. Which is dumb. First, because he buys his health care form a private company, and second, because he's not required to buy it at all.

jbooth 16y ago

Additionally, the article's author gave no indication that he knew how arithmetic works. Round number from memory, paying someone 59k, gov't takes 20k, and healthcare costs 12k, so everything is 100% government's fault. And Obama's fault. Even though he cut the taxes for that employee. EDIT: Hi downmodders. 100% factual post here. Obama cut your taxes. Sorry.

DanielBMarkham 16y ago

Let's assume that you are right -- he is making a blatant political point. It's also true that these things add together. And I believe the reasons he states to be a true indicator of why he's not hiring. When somebody explains to you why they are not hiring -- and gives you the numbers to back it up, arguing about his politics or opinions of your pet causes is total idiocy. Who cares? Just assume that all those things on his balance sheet are wonderful goodness from above. Assume he's a bigoted moron. Whatever works for you. Numbers still add together to make totals. And people make decisions (and form opinions) based on those numbers. Arguing about his politics doesn't change any of that. You can't argue yourself into a profit margin. Next year there will be a new pet cause and a new item on the balance sheet. Maybe these are all great things, maybe the inmates are running the asylum. Probably a great discussion for somewhere else. None of that political stuff is relevant here, no matter how strongly you feel about it. This is the cost of doing business, and this is why he is not hiring. It would have been an entirely different piece without the numbers, but the numbers are true indicators of the nature of his business decision. Ignoring them or having a snit about them is just so much noise.

jbooth 16y ago
Did you read the linked article? The guy's business is in the tank. He wouldn't be hiring if the government paid him to hire. Which they might, actually, via tax credits under certain circumstances, I'm not too up on that stuff. The guy's numbers were ridiculous. The changes to his cash flow, year over year, regarding employees, are dominated by healthcare costs. That's not a government problem (although it arguably should be). To the extent that his cash flow is affected by taxes, Obama cut them. No wonder he can't run a business.
- DanielBMarkham 16y ago
  sigh
  - jbooth 16y ago
    You're saying that we should ignore his political affiliations and focus on the numbers he presented. I'm saying the numbers he presented don't add up to the point he was making unless you add them up totally wrong -- and the point he's making is manifestly political and has nothing to do with anyone's business reality.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]