What is the ad going after? The health care expansions?
Or is it just a general anti-Blago ad?
Or, maybe, all that money they collected earlier this year from businesses to defeat the GRT hasn't all been spent yet.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
Interesting. Sounds like a direct reference to healthcare spending. I wonder if they fear a from of the GRT coming back.
b-dogg
· 2 years ago
Promoting class warfare is a good thing. Income inequality is worse in this country now than during the Gilded Age.
beavis
· 2 years ago
If its one thing that G-Rod's team understands its advertising points. Perhaps the IMA and some of the other key interest groups can keep this up for 3 years (what are they thinking?).
"Help us negative advertising, you're my only hope. . . "(hat tip to George Lucas)
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
I wonder if Mr. Baise sees or feels the tide turning against modern day Corporate America. Corporate CEOs, board members and upper management are being grossly overcompensated and are often bought out with lucrative packages even when they FAIL. The average voters dislikes corporations and executives and this is one reason why the GOP cannot win on the issue of corporate taxation and limiting executive pay and/or benefits.
The WSJ did a great story on how many corporate power structures are starting to migrate towards the Democrats. In my estimation, they save face by supporting social spending and assistance for the less fortunate while still reaping the benefits of an open market system. They can't lose, and if the Dems hold the U.S. House and Senate while overtaking the White House the national Dems will remember these overtures.
NimROD
· 2 years ago
"Promoting class warfare is a good thing. Income inequality is worse in this country now than during the Gilded Age."
Spoken like a graduate of the Redistribution of Wealth School of Liberalism.
Just exactly when did it go out of style to strive to better yourself in order to get ahead financially? What is the point of working to succeed when the nanny state and its proponents work endlessly to take away what is rightly earned and give it to those whose only talent is to take?
Class warfare is the most base, vile tool in the liberal pantheon. It is also their most effective. Our good governor rode class warfare to two election victories under its pseudonym 'populism'.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
I would also ask Mr. Baise why many of his members have undercut their employees' health benefits while not always offering viable alternatives. If you cut or retard hourly pay while increasing health insurance buy-ins and plan options, what does he expect?
Greg
· 2 years ago
TS,
I guess you're an upset shareholder, because it's not as if companies are wasting your money. If that's the case, don't re-elect your directors.
By the way, you might want to research corporate governance; "board members" make little or no money.
Ok, no
· 2 years ago
Nim,
Change "nanny-state" to "free-market fundamentalists" and I'll agree with your statement 100%.
Non-profiteer
· 2 years ago
It seems like when folks begin to complain about class warfare, I tend to quickly look at their party affiliation. With Greg Baise and his affiliation with the Thompson administration, along with representing IMA, why is this not expected? Although I don't always agree with the way the Governor has handled the budget this year, there is a class warfare going on now and unfortunately those at the lower end of the spectrum are losing out.
zatoichi
· 2 years ago
How many employers in Illinois fall into the Corporate America category vs. small business. Corporate America may get the newspaper print but small business has the body count. I cannot think of any local or statewide business where the CEO or managers are making 1,000x the average worker. It is a very differnt animal (and slippery slope) when comparing $1B firms to a small furniture chain, local manufacturer, medical group, or trucking business.
cermak_rd
· 2 years ago
Since when did attempted tax raising create a hostile business environment? Seriously, he proposed, it didn't get accepted. Like him or not, I don't think you can hold making proposals against him.
As for class warfare. The classes have always struggled against each other. They always will. Class mobility is actually lower in the US than several other nations around the world. We just have better myths.
There was a concept in the middle ages, nobless oblige. They believed that the wealthier had certain obligations (as limited as they were) to the poor. It was probably half social pressure and half pragmatism. The philosophy, I believe, still serves us well, because if you let the gaps between the haves and the have-nots get too wide, you raise the spectre of class revolt, no one wins that game, and it's in the interest of capitalists to avoid it. If you've ever listened to songs from the Depression, you'll hear some pretty rough things said about those of wealth. Watch some of the pre-Code movies and you'll see crime not always considered a bad thing. Read some of the old legends, you'll find outlaws considered heroes because they stole from the rich or banks. Letting in a little socialism in the New Deal may have staved off a class revolt.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
Baise implies that raising taxes on "employers" makes the economy worse, but he fails to base that in any fact. First, it depends on what you mean by employers--are we talking about psychopathic multinational corporations, or are we talking about small, independent, family, and local community-based employers? There's a big difference between the two; and I don't have a problem with raising taxes on the multinationals (They're paying far less than their fair share, in terms of ability to pay, and it's the small businesses that create most of the jobs anyway.)
I also think that Baise is conflating employees with the businesses that employ them. Is the IMA an association of manufacturing businesses, or an association of the employees of such businesses?
b-dogg
· 2 years ago
Ok, no - great insight. :)
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Greg, I own stock through my 401(k) but I am not a direct voter. But there are many corporate abuses at the top, such an unGodly stock option plans, buyouts, housing allowances, etc. I think corporate structures waste a lot of money at the top and I'm not always sure many stockholders actually know some of the hidden benefits.
I guess my point is that I find it offensive for a large company to cut health benefits while extending monthly health allowances to its upper management.
And there are some corporate board members who are handsomely paid while also being allowed to serve on multiple boards. Barney Frank is being proactive in this regard and, even though I disagree with him on most issues, I support his endeavor.
Moderate REpub
· 2 years ago
- Squideshi - Thursday, Oct 4, 07 @ 10:49 am:
"Baise implies that raising taxes on “employers†makes the economy worse, but he fails to base that in any fact."
R U Kidding me? Here an easy way to show that. Go to the Fed Bur of employ stats and see what kind of job creation and stability has been under blagos rein. Compare that to the past, along with where the rest of the country is. We have fallen from 12trh under Ryan, to 48th (thats with only LA, and MI (hurricaine, auto Ind collapse) are the only ahead of us. Couple that with the understanding that we are an income tax driven state. The bulk of our dollars come from income and sales tax. So, if we lose jobs, we loose revenue. More burden on business through taxes, the less jobs created. Its a well documented and researched EASY concept.
"First, it depends on what you mean by employers–are we talking about psychopathic multinational corporations, or are we talking about small, independent, family, and local community-based employers? There’s a big difference between the two;" Over 80% of IL collected income taxes come from business. The Corp tax is less than 10%. Over 80% of busineses JUST pay income tax (its the catagory they fall in).
"and I don’t have a problem with raising taxes on the multinationals (They’re paying far less than their fair share, in terms of ability to pay, and it’s the small businesses that create most of the jobs anyway.)" If you don't offer incentive to big business, the WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Competition among states for big business is worse than recruiting pro athletes. Blago has decimated our edge in this competion in 5 short years.
To be honest, I am not a big fan of Big Jims old Limo driver, tends to be pretty arrogant, but your critsism is unwarrented, unresearched and unfounded.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Why are there so many anti-business postings here? Exactly how do you think we've gotten this far if you believe businesses are some kind of vampires destroying human life? See those skyscrapers? See this huge city? Do you think some government edict created this?
It is simply shocking that so-called educated people are pinning for big government 15 years after a Democratic president named Clinton pronounced it dead during his State of the Union address. It blows my mind that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have people actually believing that a free market is some kind of evil. Does Bush Derangement Syndrom know no bounds?
Go with what works. Look at Europe. It is not working. It's economy is stagnant. It's social structure is crumbling. That is what you WANT for us? What is your problem? Where have you been?
We are where we are at the top of the world, the richest country ever in written history because of our willingness to take risks, let people succeed, let people keep their money, let people pursue their dreams and celebrating individual freedoms. We didn't get where we are by government edicts, welfare programs, taxes and puritanism, guilt and envy. Our economy has NEVER been bigger. You think this is a problem?
Those who wish to blame businesses for our social ills do not understand how the world has worked over the past 2000 years and have greedily supped Kool-Aid from failed 20th Century frauds and self-hating elitists.
It is high time some of you folks stopped miming your wacked out college professors and grow up.
NimROD
· 2 years ago
Vanilla Man:
Now THAT was great insight. :)
b-dogg
· 2 years ago
Vanilla Man, Simmer down brother. The free market obviously has its place, and is a good thing- in most cases. What you and your little Univ. of Chicago graduates of the school of "we are going to shove neo-liberal economics down your throat" do not understand is that in cases when the free market does not work, there needs to be safety nets and social systems to help the "losers." Look at this country- the privatization of mental health has had devastating consequences on those who have mental health issues- most of them are now in prison- where they are not going to get much help. Caring only for yourself and looking out only for yourself in an economic sense are all fine and good, but what you are forgetting is that you live in a society. Your children will live in this society long after we are gone- so it is your interest, albeit your long run interest, to make this society as safe and as functional as possible and in order to do that neoliberal economics policies need to be re-examined. Notice I did not call for an end to the free market, but the current status quo cannot continue.
Ghost
· 2 years ago
Team Sleep, corporate structures that "waste money" at the top get taken over, ala Kraft (read Barbarians at the Gate). High paid executives are paid those salaries because of what they bring to the table, and the corporations desire to keep the invidivual. In a society where we have actors who get 40million for a single movie, athelets who get million dollar signing bonuses and contracts worth 10 million or more a year, what the president, CEO and CFO of a large company make in comparison is a pittance. Add the incredible pressure involved to operate a large corp successfully, to justify the salary, and they are not overpaid.
Usually folks who complain about salaries of execs are those who have failed to become execs. When you put the time in effort into becoming a CEO of a larg corp, feel free to give back your salary. BUT the comments about exec salaries from folks who have failed to demonstarte the skills or abilites to obtain and hold such jobs themselves sound more like bitterness.
I left out Class action lawyers, making millions so the calls can get a .50 coupon.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
"Why are there so many anti-business postings here?"
They're not so much anti-business as they are pro-natural-person. In addition, anti-BIG-business is not the same thing as anti-business. Big business is bad for some of the same reasons that many conservatives claim big government is bad.
"Exactly how do you think we’ve gotten this far if you believe businesses are some kind of vampires destroying human life?"
Who is to say that we would not have gotten further had the situation have been different? I personally believe that our relative isolation from the old world, combined with our seizure of the lands that today comprise the United States, allowed us to freely exploit a large number and amount of natural resources for which other nations needed to fight and compete. Also, consider that we use our military to bully the rest of the world into accepting policies that favor the United States--that's not a function of something positive that big business has done.
In addition, why point up to the skyscrapers when you can point down to the homeless mentally ill living on Lower Wacker? Why not point to consumer debt and bankruptcy rates? Why not point to crimes, broken homes, and the polluted environment?
Exactly what standard are you using to judge progress anyway? I'm willing to bet that you're using the corporate GDP/GNP standards. Those are terrible standards--they're designed to be pro-big-business, rather than pro-natural person; and they don't indicate genuine progress.
"See those skyscrapers? See this huge city? Do you think some government edict created this?"
Ummm... Yes, at least in part. It was government edict created the indian treaties that secured the land, and it was government edict that approved the construction of the I&M canal (enabling trade and commerce.) It was also government edict that created the first "canal towns" including the incorporation of what was then the small Town of Chicago. It was government edict that provided city services, such as police protection, which allowed trade and commerce to be carried out with a minimum of interruption; and it was government edict that created the parks, mail, and transportation infrastructure that attracts residents and continues to enable commerce. It's also government edict that has established land use planning and zoning regulations, which attempt to allow the city to develop in an organized fashion. I am willing to bet that it was also government edict that either provided at least a portion of the funding; or at least gave workers a social safety net, better allowing them to actually spend time building such structures.
Last, the skyscraper may be there; and I don't know about you, but I certainly don't own them.
"It is simply shocking that so-called educated people are pinning for big government 15 years after a Democratic president named Clinton pronounced it dead during his State of the Union address."
I don't really care much about what Bill Clinton said. I didn't like Bill Clinton as President. He was right that big government is not the solution, but he was wrong in thinking that big business was.
"It blows my mind that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have people actually believing that a free market is some kind of evil."
The market is not evil--it is amoral. The market does not make moral judgments--it just does whatever it is setup to do. If it is setup to make a profit, that's exactly what it will do, no matter what the cost to society. (The built in assumption is that profit = public good; and while that may sometimes be true, it's not always the case.) In other words, the market is a tool. It is an engine that can be used for productive work; but like any other engine, it needs an idle and controls (Otherwise it overheats or stalls.)
"Go with what works. Look at Europe. It is not working. It’s economy is stagnant. It’s social structure is crumbling."
I don't know where you're getting this from. I totally disagree with that assessment.
"We didn’t get where we are by government edicts, welfare programs, taxes and puritanism, guilt and envy."
We didn't get here by puritanism? Really? Did we get here by pilgrimism then? :)
NimROD
· 2 years ago
"Look at this country- the privatization of mental health has had devastating consequences on those who have mental health issues- most of them are now in prison- where they are not going to get much help."
And do you actually think that placing mental-health care under the government-wing is going to do any better for them? Governor Oh-So-Caring-About-The-Little-People shouts from the mount about how he wants the government to run health care...then he shell-games 100 million out of AllKids to give it to another health-care program; ALL FOR A PHOTO OP. As to the mentally disabled...he couldn't wait to throw the disabled and their parents under the bus at LDC (even after promising that he would open the renovated facility that THEY wanted) over a few million dollars. Tell me again about how government has the best interest of the mentally-disabled over private industry.
Entrusting government with ANY money greater than what is absolutely necessary to maintain infrastructure and defense is a fools' errand. You may detest business and rail against what it does to the working man (such as provide a living for him) but at least most successful businesses know how to manage capital. It should be painfully obvious to all of you Governor's State grads that government cant be trusted with the checkbook.
"Caring only for yourself and looking out only for yourself in an economic sense are all fine and good, but what you are forgetting is that you live in a society. Your children will live in this society long after we are gone- so it is your interest, albeit your long run interest, to make this society as safe and as functional as possible and in order to do that neoliberal economics policies need to be re-examined."
Since you also decided to play the Helen Lovejoy-esque 'Won't someone please think of the children' card - I have no children. I am also sick and tired of you expecting me to fund yours through taxation. The only re-examination we need to do is why so many people on this board think that their vision of Utopia can be achieved with government entitlements. It's time people step up for themselves; stop using the government like their rich uncle and big business like the cat's sandbox.
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Ghost, I don't have a problem with a CEO making $10 million a year. But if the company cuts benefits and pensions for its employees so they can expand upper management's pay and benefits, I do have a problem with that. What message does that send to the hard-working laborers or foreman or drivers? That no matter how hard you work, a bunch of guys in $2,000 suits can sit in a meeting and cut your pay and benefits while chatting up how much extra they can give themselves for a housing allowance? Or that moving a company is deemed "necessary" by a group of people who make each make more in one year than many employees will make in one lifetime? It sends a bad message.
Remember, too, that no matter how much good a company does or how great a company's product may be, the general public tpyically dislikes big business. And articles of corporate malfeasance and gigantic compensation packages and outsourcing certainly do not help.
I'm not bitter, either. I chose to go into politics and I know I will probably never make a king's ransom. I just hate seeing people work hard and achieve nothing based on the decisions of a select few.
Free Enterprise Businessman
· 2 years ago
Looked at the tone of several postings, I fee compelled to respond.
I will agree - there are some companies/company execs who mis-behave. In many cases the free market addresses these issues and the case of criminal misconduct, government addresses these wrong doing. That said businesses as a group actually seek the common good. It is not in their best interest to destroy its customer.
Yes there is a role for government, for society needs can not be totally handled by businesses. It just does not fit into their business plan or operations. But turning everything that our society wants or needs over to the government.
Lets examine health care. Some business provide employer sponsored health care insurance, so don't. Not because they are evil or with evil thoughts simply deny that benefit to its employees. It gets down to afordability. Some can and some can not afford it.
I am presently running a small business in Illinois and I compete directly with businesses in adjoining states. Also I have direct experience in adjacent states and I can say without reservation the business climate and tax burden in these states are LOWER. What does that mean to us
1. Less attractive business climate means not only do the business find their resources are limited, but also their employees like the business itself fall behind their counterparts. 2.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
"I will agree - there are some companies/company execs who mis-behave. In many cases the free market addresses these issues and the case of criminal misconduct, government addresses these wrong doing. That said businesses as a group actually seek the common good. It is not in their best interest to destroy its customer."
I disagree. In many cases the free market does NOT address these issues. To think that it does is somewhat of an idealistic notion that assumes a perfect set of operating principles. It assumes for example that people have perfect knowledge about each companies operations (or that they have the time, knowledge, or resources to get access.) When is the last time, for example, that an environmentalist needed to choose between two commodity products and was able to include, as part of their decision making process, whether or not each of the companies used environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in their offices?
I used to think that this type "missing" information was itself merely another market opportunity--eventually a company would step in and capitalize on it--investigating companies in detail, certifying them for various purposes, and providing detailed information to consumers to use in their decision making process; however, it was only then that I realized that the only thing that even comes close to this is Consumer Reports, which is a publication of Consumer Union, which was founded by Ralph Nader.
Yes, the "free market" works well in theory; but just like pure communism, no matter how it looks on paper, it doesn't function exactly that way in real life. As Yogi Berra once said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is."
FED UP
· 2 years ago
The fact is Ill. does lag the nation in job growth and it does have alot to do with blagos policys. Companys are building in bordering states but not here for a reason. The FBI and Federal prosecutors office have experianced growth thanks to chicago cook co and Illinois pols though.
Bill
· 2 years ago
VanMan, Those skyscrapers and and huge cities were built by working men and women...plumbers, electricians, equipment operators, carpenters, laborers, and so on. They were not built by Armani wearing fat cats who spend their days meeting other fat cats trying to get fatter. Why are you so opposed to the people who do the real work getting their fair share of the benefit of it?
Team Sleep
· 2 years ago
Wow, Bill, I agree with you. I am going to utilize my "Microsoft Award Maker" and declare that on October 4, 2007 at 1:36 p.m., I have agreed with Bill on an issue.
VanillaMan
· 2 years ago
Bill You are so predictable. Who paid for all those workers?
Armani wearing fat cats? "pro-natural-person"?
Like I said, it's time to take a look at the calendar. It is 2007 not 1937. You anti-business posters need to stop miming your old hippy professors' Ode To Karl Marx routines.
stan
· 2 years ago
Wow, they may not be qualified for their jobs, but at the least the Blago political hires know how to blog and use a computer keyboard.
By the way, 98 percent of manufacturing companies provide health care benefits to their workers. Since GRod has taken over, we have lost 55,000 manufacturing jobs that average $64,0000 per year with benefits.
Grod is a disaster.
Greg
· 2 years ago
I know a lot these fat cats. Funny thing, the ones I know are neither fat, nor lazy, nor Armani-wearing. Kind of like the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.
Logical
· 2 years ago
It does NOT matter whether you support capitolism, socialism, communism or any other "ism" as monetary policy, what matters is that business does NOT pay taxes. Basic business profit requires selling products (labor or widgets) to pay for all inputs (labor, raw materials, taxes, or any other expenses) plus desired profit percentage. It is not necessarily in that formula, but none the less, the result is the same. You want McDonalds to supply all employees (part or full time) health insurance, expect for your meal price to increase. Some might think that raising taxes on a corporation such as Caterpillar will not affect you as you do not buy any of their products. Yet, any company performing road construction that utilizes Cat equipment will need to increase the rates charged to the state to offset the higher cost of equipment. While Baise did not specifically address this, but governments (federal, state, or local) very rarely can solve problems by adding to programs.
Anon
· 2 years ago
One of America's greatest strengths has been to give each citizen the right to fail.
Blinding Glimpse of the Obviou
· 2 years ago
Seems to me that Mr. Baise is throwing some red meat to his people. No one else from the biz community seems to have the guts to do it.
Sprinflield Watcher
· 2 years ago
I know Gerg Baise from Springfield and I consider Greg Baise a friend of mine. He did a wonderful as Secretary of Transportation, and no I never worked there. But I can speak to the kind of person he is and a good solid businessman. He is right on the Governor is trying to make this a socialist state make no mistake about that and all Greg is doing is to try to keep free enterprise alive.
I wish we had more people like Greg Baise in this state who would consider running for Governor, believe it going to take someone of his character to try and get this State back in shape after Blago. Please people of Chicago of which I am now one start to vote Republican. I know that sounds like blasphemy in this city but don’t you realize how much tax money the Democrats have taken and wasted and they still want more. It’s time for a Boston Tea Party at Navy Pier.
Bill
· 2 years ago
Baise is a frustrated political hack who could not get himself elected to anything so he grabbed at the opportunity to enrich himself serving as the mouthpiece of his republican cronies at the IMA. As far as the ad is concerned, Illinois is the sixth richest state in the nation in terms of the GSP. The number of jobs in Illinois has increased by hundreds of thousands over the last 5 years. And how is trying to provide mamograms for women a self serving,pet project? If the members of the IMA and Il C of C were providing adequate health insurance to their employees, maybe the state would have less need for programs like this.Enough IS enough. It is time for Illinois businesses to begin to provide equitable beneftits for the people who do the real work and make these companies their profits, their employees, instead of wasting their money on these stupid ads.
back to Bill
· 2 years ago
Once you get away from the Hugo Chavez/Rod Blagojevich mentality, you will be MUCH better off.
Its quite simple.
Businesses create jobs - government does not create jobs.
Businesses pay taxes (payroll, property, income, etc) - government does not pay taxes.
Keep raising taxes (state, Cook County, Chicago) and watch the jobs leave. Then people are unemployed which costs the state more in unemployment, health care, food stamps, etc.
Think back to SS - it used to be that 7 working adults contributed to support 1 retiree. Now its down to 2 workers for every retiree and they need to raise rates to accomodate the burden.
The more businesses leave - the worse for the state and our children and grandchildren.
Rod
· 2 years ago
Baise for Governor...
"Couldn't do worse"
Mike
· 2 years ago
Vanilla and Back to Bill are right. The money for all these programs has to come from somewhere. If businesses aren't here to offer employment, the money will go elsewhere. You want all these programs? Great. You want to write the check? Great. Businesses aren't going to choose Illinois over another state when they see the politics and infighting and a government that is openly hostile to business. Just as easy to go to a border state that will welcome the business and their revenue with open arms. The businesses leave and the citizens will follow the jobs and their money will leave with them - never to return. Why live in Cook County and pay 11% sales tax and ridiculous property taxes? The business climate is unnerving and at some point it's going to be a smart move to move elsewhere. Each business that leaves is going to leave the government with just that much less income to cover their fixed expenses.
'nuffsAnuff
· 2 years ago
The concearn that the whiteshoe business orgs display for the average joe citizen is touching. Business saw through Blago's GRT and understood that the tax would really be passed through to the working stiff! big business is standing up for the workingman when they lobby against business taxes. LOL
Southern Illinois iPhone
· 2 years ago
There are a lot of people here willing to chop off the head of the Golden Goose here, aren't there? Sure, we need social welfare programs. We need a social safety net. None of the pro-business posters here are denying that. However, do we need the bureaucracy to be at the level it is in this state, the job patronage, and the corruption? If you cut down business to get back at the Man, the only people you will end up hurting are the working men and women. All the Armani-wearing fat cats I know got to that point by working their butts off, and they are mobile and can land their businesses somewhere else. That kills the social welfare net in this state because if things get to be unreasonable, they leave, and the state bureaucrats get into a vicious cycle of tax and spend with receivership for the state at the end.
I'm not a big fan of multi-nationals either, but they're around because they employ people. You hurt them, you hurt the people working for them, and the Armani wearers just activate their well-designed Golden Parachutes.
Squideshi
· 2 years ago
VanillaMan said, "'pro-natural-person'?"
That's correct. You see, we have a bad legal precedent here in the United States where corporations, which are artificial legal fictions--creations of the state--are considered legal "persons" with inalienable rights. No legislature ever passed a law making this so--it's just incredibly bad case law.
So, unfortunately, by law the term "person" includes corporations; but the term "natural person" includes only real, living, breathing human beings--whom government is actually INTENDED to serve. I think that most of the founding fathers would have a coronary if they were alive to see the state of corporate power today.
"You anti-business posters need to stop miming your old hippy professors’ Ode To Karl Marx routines."
Wow. Ad Hom attack. I guess that means you're out of good arguments. Plus, you totally don't get it, do you? Anti-big-business is NOT the same as anti-business. It IS possible to be anti-big-business and pro-small-business at the same time (In fact, that's exactly what the Green Party is, in addition to pro-small-government.)
Logical said, "You want McDonalds to supply all employees (part or full time) health insurance, expect for your meal price to increase."
Wrong. That thinking is FAR to simplistic. You assume that profit margin is not flexible. You assume that a business will ALWAYS pass costs on to the consumer, and that is simply not the case. There are many cases in which a business can not pass additional costs on to the consumer. For example, the market simply may not bear the additional cost; so the product or service is simply no longer viable and will go away (There's nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of ideas that are not viable in the marketplace.) In addition, businesses CAN cut into their profit margins, rather than passing costs on to consumers; and this is particularly appropriate when they have excessive profit margins. Last, additional costs may merely encourage a business to find more efficient methods, thereby reducing other costs, if they want to both maintain their profit margin AND avoid passing on the costs.
Springfliels Watcher said, "He is right on the Governor is trying to make this a socialist state make no mistake about that and all Greg is doing is to try to keep free enterprise alive."
Please. You don't even seem to know what the word Socialist means. You're just throwing it around as a pejorative. I have NEVER--not even once--heard Blagojevich claiming that Illinois workers must control the means of production or calling for the abolition of private business and land ownership. In addition, I have seen no legislation proposed by him that attempts to do any of these things.
As I said before, I am not personally a Socialist; but if you're going to use the word, as least use it correctly and know what you're talking about.
back to Bill said, "Businesses create jobs - government does not create jobs."
Wrong. First, SMALL businesses create jobs. Second, small businesses AND government create jobs. If you don't believe me, just look back to things like the Works Progress Administration.
Mike said, "Businesses aren’t going to choose Illinois over another state when they see the politics and infighting and a government that is openly hostile to business. Just as easy to go to a border state that will welcome the business and their revenue with open arms."
Businesses will go wherever there is market opportunity. If businesses leave Illinois, that creates an opportunity for other businesses to exploit. There are PLENTY of for-profit private companies who CHOOSE to enter into highly-regulated markets with lots of government regulation (like healthcare or finance) because even though the profit margin may be smaller, they make up for it in volume--especially when they're exploiting a market opportunity that other companies aren't competent enough to do.
Southern Illinois iPhone said, "I’m not a big fan of multi-nationals either, but they’re around because they employ people."
They're around because they have better access to capital and can leverage economies of scale that small and startup businesses can not. In addition, they're around because they've been able to get involved in the political process, essentially buying candidates with their campaign contributions and capturing regulatory agencies, working to raise barriers to market entry by new companies (ever see the movie Tucker?) They are destroying the very system that created them.
Logical
· 2 years ago
Squideshi, while in the technical sense you are correct, in reality you are wrong. I understand all about flexible profit margins as I deal with it on a daily basis. My point that regardless of your fluctuating margins, the consumer is still paying the tax. Using your example about the market not accepting an increase in price, if business "A" is selling at reduced or no profit margin do to market conditions and drop the product from the market, there is no guarantee another business will move in to sell the product. Plus, over the long term unless them item can be used as a "loss leader" the price will raise to meet other demands. For example, the state imposes GRT at 2%, the business decides to absorb the tax. Some time later, another cost increases 2% and the business decides to increase the price adding both increases. Thus, the consumer pays for both increases. My whole argument is that business/corporations/partnerships/sole proprieters tax burdens are placed upon the consumer whenever and however possible. Only profits allow for expansion (yes, that is to easy but it is reality).
All Comments
Or is it just a general anti-Blago ad?
Or, maybe, all that money they collected earlier this year from businesses to defeat the GRT hasn't all been spent yet.
"Help us negative advertising, you're my only hope. . . "(hat tip to George Lucas)
The WSJ did a great story on how many corporate power structures are starting to migrate towards the Democrats. In my estimation, they save face by supporting social spending and assistance for the less fortunate while still reaping the benefits of an open market system. They can't lose, and if the Dems hold the U.S. House and Senate while overtaking the White House the national Dems will remember these overtures.
Spoken like a graduate of the Redistribution of Wealth School of Liberalism.
Just exactly when did it go out of style to strive to better yourself in order to get ahead financially? What is the point of working to succeed when the nanny state and its proponents work endlessly to take away what is rightly earned and give it to those whose only talent is to take?
Class warfare is the most base, vile tool in the liberal pantheon. It is also their most effective. Our good governor rode class warfare to two election victories under its pseudonym 'populism'.
I guess you're an upset shareholder, because it's not as if companies are wasting your money. If that's the case, don't re-elect your directors.
By the way, you might want to research corporate governance; "board members" make little or no money.
Change "nanny-state" to "free-market fundamentalists" and I'll agree with your statement 100%.
As for class warfare. The classes have always struggled against each other. They always will. Class mobility is actually lower in the US than several other nations around the world. We just have better myths.
There was a concept in the middle ages, nobless oblige. They believed that the wealthier had certain obligations (as limited as they were) to the poor. It was probably half social pressure and half pragmatism. The philosophy, I believe, still serves us well, because if you let the gaps between the haves and the have-nots get too wide, you raise the spectre of class revolt, no one wins that game, and it's in the interest of capitalists to avoid it. If you've ever listened to songs from the Depression, you'll hear some pretty rough things said about those of wealth. Watch some of the pre-Code movies and you'll see crime not always considered a bad thing. Read some of the old legends, you'll find outlaws considered heroes because they stole from the rich or banks. Letting in a little socialism in the New Deal may have staved off a class revolt.
I also think that Baise is conflating employees with the businesses that employ them. Is the IMA an association of manufacturing businesses, or an association of the employees of such businesses?
I guess my point is that I find it offensive for a large company to cut health benefits while extending monthly health allowances to its upper management.
And there are some corporate board members who are handsomely paid while also being allowed to serve on multiple boards. Barney Frank is being proactive in this regard and, even though I disagree with him on most issues, I support his endeavor.
"Baise implies that raising taxes on “employers†makes the economy worse, but he fails to base that in any fact."
R U Kidding me? Here an easy way to show that. Go to the Fed Bur of employ stats and see what kind of job creation and stability has been under blagos rein. Compare that to the past, along with where the rest of the country is. We have fallen from 12trh under Ryan, to 48th (thats with only LA, and MI (hurricaine, auto Ind collapse) are the only ahead of us. Couple that with the understanding that we are an income tax driven state. The bulk of our dollars come from income and sales tax. So, if we lose jobs, we loose revenue. More burden on business through taxes, the less jobs created. Its a well documented and researched EASY concept.
"First, it depends on what you mean by employers–are we talking about psychopathic multinational corporations, or are we talking about small, independent, family, and local community-based employers? There’s a big difference between the two;"
Over 80% of IL collected income taxes come from business. The Corp tax is less than 10%. Over 80% of busineses JUST pay income tax (its the catagory they fall in).
"and I don’t have a problem with raising taxes on the multinationals (They’re paying far less than their fair share, in terms of ability to pay, and it’s the small businesses that create most of the jobs anyway.)" If you don't offer incentive to big business, the WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. Competition among states for big business is worse than recruiting pro athletes. Blago has decimated our edge in this competion in 5 short years.
To be honest, I am not a big fan of Big Jims old Limo driver, tends to be pretty arrogant, but your critsism is unwarrented, unresearched and unfounded.
It is simply shocking that so-called educated people are pinning for big government 15 years after a Democratic president named Clinton pronounced it dead during his State of the Union address. It blows my mind that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have people actually believing that a free market is some kind of evil. Does Bush Derangement Syndrom know no bounds?
Go with what works. Look at Europe. It is not working. It's economy is stagnant. It's social structure is crumbling. That is what you WANT for us? What is your problem? Where have you been?
We are where we are at the top of the world, the richest country ever in written history because of our willingness to take risks, let people succeed, let people keep their money, let people pursue their dreams and celebrating individual freedoms. We didn't get where we are by government edicts, welfare programs, taxes and puritanism, guilt and envy. Our economy has NEVER been bigger. You think this is a problem?
Those who wish to blame businesses for our social ills do not understand how the world has worked over the past 2000 years and have greedily supped Kool-Aid from failed 20th Century frauds and self-hating elitists.
It is high time some of you folks stopped miming your wacked out college professors and grow up.
Now THAT was great insight. :)
Simmer down brother. The free market obviously has its place, and is a good thing- in most cases. What you and your little Univ. of Chicago graduates of the school of "we are going to shove neo-liberal economics down your throat" do not understand is that in cases when the free market does not work, there needs to be safety nets and social systems to help the "losers." Look at this country- the privatization of mental health has had devastating consequences on those who have mental health issues- most of them are now in prison- where they are not going to get much help. Caring only for yourself and looking out only for yourself in an economic sense are all fine and good, but what you are forgetting is that you live in a society. Your children will live in this society long after we are gone- so it is your interest, albeit your long run interest, to make this society as safe and as functional as possible and in order to do that neoliberal economics policies need to be re-examined. Notice I did not call for an end to the free market, but the current status quo cannot continue.
Usually folks who complain about salaries of execs are those who have failed to become execs. When you put the time in effort into becoming a CEO of a larg corp, feel free to give back your salary. BUT the comments about exec salaries from folks who have failed to demonstarte the skills or abilites to obtain and hold such jobs themselves sound more like bitterness.
I left out Class action lawyers, making millions so the calls can get a .50 coupon.
They're not so much anti-business as they are pro-natural-person. In addition, anti-BIG-business is not the same thing as anti-business. Big business is bad for some of the same reasons that many conservatives claim big government is bad.
"Exactly how do you think we’ve gotten this far if you believe businesses are some kind of vampires destroying human life?"
Who is to say that we would not have gotten further had the situation have been different? I personally believe that our relative isolation from the old world, combined with our seizure of the lands that today comprise the United States, allowed us to freely exploit a large number and amount of natural resources for which other nations needed to fight and compete. Also, consider that we use our military to bully the rest of the world into accepting policies that favor the United States--that's not a function of something positive that big business has done.
In addition, why point up to the skyscrapers when you can point down to the homeless mentally ill living on Lower Wacker? Why not point to consumer debt and bankruptcy rates? Why not point to crimes, broken homes, and the polluted environment?
Exactly what standard are you using to judge progress anyway? I'm willing to bet that you're using the corporate GDP/GNP standards. Those are terrible standards--they're designed to be pro-big-business, rather than pro-natural person; and they don't indicate genuine progress.
"See those skyscrapers? See this huge city? Do you think some government edict created this?"
Ummm... Yes, at least in part. It was government edict created the indian treaties that secured the land, and it was government edict that approved the construction of the I&M canal (enabling trade and commerce.) It was also government edict that created the first "canal towns" including the incorporation of what was then the small Town of Chicago. It was government edict that provided city services, such as police protection, which allowed trade and commerce to be carried out with a minimum of interruption; and it was government edict that created the parks, mail, and transportation infrastructure that attracts residents and continues to enable commerce. It's also government edict that has established land use planning and zoning regulations, which attempt to allow the city to develop in an organized fashion. I am willing to bet that it was also government edict that either provided at least a portion of the funding; or at least gave workers a social safety net, better allowing them to actually spend time building such structures.
Last, the skyscraper may be there; and I don't know about you, but I certainly don't own them.
"It is simply shocking that so-called educated people are pinning for big government 15 years after a Democratic president named Clinton pronounced it dead during his State of the Union address."
I don't really care much about what Bill Clinton said. I didn't like Bill Clinton as President. He was right that big government is not the solution, but he was wrong in thinking that big business was.
"It blows my mind that 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we have people actually believing that a free market is some kind of evil."
The market is not evil--it is amoral. The market does not make moral judgments--it just does whatever it is setup to do. If it is setup to make a profit, that's exactly what it will do, no matter what the cost to society. (The built in assumption is that profit = public good; and while that may sometimes be true, it's not always the case.) In other words, the market is a tool. It is an engine that can be used for productive work; but like any other engine, it needs an idle and controls (Otherwise it overheats or stalls.)
"Go with what works. Look at Europe. It is not working. It’s economy is stagnant. It’s social structure is crumbling."
I don't know where you're getting this from. I totally disagree with that assessment.
"We didn’t get where we are by government edicts, welfare programs, taxes and puritanism, guilt and envy."
We didn't get here by puritanism? Really? Did we get here by pilgrimism then? :)
And do you actually think that placing mental-health care under the government-wing is going to do any better for them? Governor Oh-So-Caring-About-The-Little-People shouts from the mount about how he wants the government to run health care...then he shell-games 100 million out of AllKids to give it to another health-care program; ALL FOR A PHOTO OP. As to the mentally disabled...he couldn't wait to throw the disabled and their parents under the bus at LDC (even after promising that he would open the renovated facility that THEY wanted) over a few million dollars. Tell me again about how government has the best interest of the mentally-disabled over private industry.
Entrusting government with ANY money greater than what is absolutely necessary to maintain infrastructure and defense is a fools' errand. You may detest business and rail against what it does to the working man (such as provide a living for him) but at least most successful businesses know how to manage capital. It should be painfully obvious to all of you Governor's State grads that government cant be trusted with the checkbook.
"Caring only for yourself and looking out only for yourself in an economic sense are all fine and good, but what you are forgetting is that you live in a society. Your children will live in this society long after we are gone- so it is your interest, albeit your long run interest, to make this society as safe and as functional as possible and in order to do that neoliberal economics policies need to be re-examined."
Since you also decided to play the Helen Lovejoy-esque 'Won't someone please think of the children' card - I have no children. I am also sick and tired of you expecting me to fund yours through taxation. The only re-examination we need to do is why so many people on this board think that their vision of Utopia can be achieved with government entitlements. It's time people step up for themselves; stop using the government like their rich uncle and big business like the cat's sandbox.
Remember, too, that no matter how much good a company does or how great a company's product may be, the general public tpyically dislikes big business. And articles of corporate malfeasance and gigantic compensation packages and outsourcing certainly do not help.
I'm not bitter, either. I chose to go into politics and I know I will probably never make a king's ransom. I just hate seeing people work hard and achieve nothing based on the decisions of a select few.
I will agree - there are some companies/company execs who mis-behave. In many cases the free market addresses these issues and the case of criminal misconduct, government addresses these wrong doing. That said businesses as a group actually seek the common good. It is not in their best interest to destroy its customer.
Yes there is a role for government, for society needs can not be totally handled by businesses. It just does not fit into their business plan or operations. But turning everything that our society wants or needs over to the government.
Lets examine health care. Some business provide employer sponsored health care insurance, so don't. Not because they are evil or with evil thoughts simply deny that benefit to its employees. It gets down to afordability. Some can and some can not afford it.
I am presently running a small business in Illinois and I compete directly with businesses in adjoining states. Also I have direct experience in adjacent states and I can say without reservation the business climate and tax burden in these states are LOWER. What does that mean to us
1. Less attractive business climate means not only do the business find their resources are limited, but also their employees like the business itself fall behind their counterparts.
2.
I disagree. In many cases the free market does NOT address these issues. To think that it does is somewhat of an idealistic notion that assumes a perfect set of operating principles. It assumes for example that people have perfect knowledge about each companies operations (or that they have the time, knowledge, or resources to get access.) When is the last time, for example, that an environmentalist needed to choose between two commodity products and was able to include, as part of their decision making process, whether or not each of the companies used environmentally friendly cleaning supplies in their offices?
I used to think that this type "missing" information was itself merely another market opportunity--eventually a company would step in and capitalize on it--investigating companies in detail, certifying them for various purposes, and providing detailed information to consumers to use in their decision making process; however, it was only then that I realized that the only thing that even comes close to this is Consumer Reports, which is a publication of Consumer Union, which was founded by Ralph Nader.
Yes, the "free market" works well in theory; but just like pure communism, no matter how it looks on paper, it doesn't function exactly that way in real life. As Yogi Berra once said, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; in practice, there is."
Those skyscrapers and and huge cities were built by working men and women...plumbers, electricians, equipment operators, carpenters, laborers, and so on. They were not built by Armani wearing fat cats who spend their days meeting other fat cats trying to get fatter. Why are you so opposed to the people who do the real work getting their fair share of the benefit of it?
You are so predictable.
Who paid for all those workers?
Armani wearing fat cats?
"pro-natural-person"?
Like I said, it's time to take a look at the calendar. It is 2007 not 1937. You anti-business posters need to stop miming your old hippy professors' Ode To Karl Marx routines.
By the way, 98 percent of manufacturing companies provide health care benefits to their workers. Since GRod has taken over, we have lost 55,000 manufacturing jobs that average $64,0000 per year with benefits.
Grod is a disaster.
Some might think that raising taxes on a corporation such as Caterpillar will not affect you as you do not buy any of their products. Yet, any company performing road construction that utilizes Cat equipment will need to increase the rates charged to the state to offset the higher cost of equipment.
While Baise did not specifically address this, but governments (federal, state, or local) very rarely can solve problems by adding to programs.
I wish we had more people like Greg Baise in this state who would consider running for Governor, believe it going to take someone of his character to try and get this State back in shape after Blago. Please people of Chicago of which I am now one start to vote Republican. I know that sounds like blasphemy in this city but don’t you realize how much tax money the Democrats have taken and wasted and they still want more. It’s time for a Boston Tea Party at Navy Pier.
As far as the ad is concerned, Illinois is the sixth richest state in the nation in terms of the GSP. The number of jobs in Illinois has increased by hundreds of thousands over the last 5 years. And how is trying to provide mamograms for women a self serving,pet project? If the members of the IMA and Il C of C were providing adequate health insurance to their employees, maybe the state would have less need for programs like this.Enough IS enough. It is time for Illinois businesses to begin to provide equitable beneftits for the people who do the real work and make these companies their profits, their employees, instead of wasting their money on these stupid ads.
Its quite simple.
Businesses create jobs - government does not create jobs.
Businesses pay taxes (payroll, property, income, etc) - government does not pay taxes.
Keep raising taxes (state, Cook County, Chicago) and watch the jobs leave. Then people are unemployed which costs the state more in unemployment, health care, food stamps, etc.
Think back to SS - it used to be that 7 working adults contributed to support 1 retiree. Now its down to 2 workers for every retiree and they need to raise rates to accomodate the burden.
The more businesses leave - the worse for the state and our children and grandchildren.
"Couldn't do worse"
Business saw through Blago's GRT and understood that the tax would really be passed through to the working stiff! big business is standing up for the workingman when they lobby against business taxes.
LOL
I'm not a big fan of multi-nationals either, but they're around because they employ people. You hurt them, you hurt the people working for them, and the Armani wearers just activate their well-designed Golden Parachutes.
That's correct. You see, we have a bad legal precedent here in the United States where corporations, which are artificial legal fictions--creations of the state--are considered legal "persons" with inalienable rights. No legislature ever passed a law making this so--it's just incredibly bad case law.
So, unfortunately, by law the term "person" includes corporations; but the term "natural person" includes only real, living, breathing human beings--whom government is actually INTENDED to serve. I think that most of the founding fathers would have a coronary if they were alive to see the state of corporate power today.
"You anti-business posters need to stop miming your old hippy professors’ Ode To Karl Marx routines."
Wow. Ad Hom attack. I guess that means you're out of good arguments. Plus, you totally don't get it, do you? Anti-big-business is NOT the same as anti-business. It IS possible to be anti-big-business and pro-small-business at the same time (In fact, that's exactly what the Green Party is, in addition to pro-small-government.)
Logical said, "You want McDonalds to supply all employees (part or full time) health insurance, expect for your meal price to increase."
Wrong. That thinking is FAR to simplistic. You assume that profit margin is not flexible. You assume that a business will ALWAYS pass costs on to the consumer, and that is simply not the case. There are many cases in which a business can not pass additional costs on to the consumer. For example, the market simply may not bear the additional cost; so the product or service is simply no longer viable and will go away (There's nothing wrong with that, there are plenty of ideas that are not viable in the marketplace.) In addition, businesses CAN cut into their profit margins, rather than passing costs on to consumers; and this is particularly appropriate when they have excessive profit margins. Last, additional costs may merely encourage a business to find more efficient methods, thereby reducing other costs, if they want to both maintain their profit margin AND avoid passing on the costs.
Springfliels Watcher said, "He is right on the Governor is trying to make this a socialist state make no mistake about that and all Greg is doing is to try to keep free enterprise alive."
Please. You don't even seem to know what the word Socialist means. You're just throwing it around as a pejorative. I have NEVER--not even once--heard Blagojevich claiming that Illinois workers must control the means of production or calling for the abolition of private business and land ownership. In addition, I have seen no legislation proposed by him that attempts to do any of these things.
As I said before, I am not personally a Socialist; but if you're going to use the word, as least use it correctly and know what you're talking about.
back to Bill said, "Businesses create jobs - government does not create jobs."
Wrong. First, SMALL businesses create jobs. Second, small businesses AND government create jobs. If you don't believe me, just look back to things like the Works Progress Administration.
Mike said, "Businesses aren’t going to choose Illinois over another state when they see the politics and infighting and a government that is openly hostile to business. Just as easy to go to a border state that will welcome the business and their revenue with open arms."
Businesses will go wherever there is market opportunity. If businesses leave Illinois, that creates an opportunity for other businesses to exploit. There are PLENTY of for-profit private companies who CHOOSE to enter into highly-regulated markets with lots of government regulation (like healthcare or finance) because even though the profit margin may be smaller, they make up for it in volume--especially when they're exploiting a market opportunity that other companies aren't competent enough to do.
Southern Illinois iPhone said, "I’m not a big fan of multi-nationals either, but they’re around because they employ people."
They're around because they have better access to capital and can leverage economies of scale that small and startup businesses can not. In addition, they're around because they've been able to get involved in the political process, essentially buying candidates with their campaign contributions and capturing regulatory agencies, working to raise barriers to market entry by new companies (ever see the movie Tucker?) They are destroying the very system that created them.
My whole argument is that business/corporations/partnerships/sole proprieters tax burdens are placed upon the consumer whenever and however possible. Only profits allow for expansion (yes, that is to easy but it is reality).