OBAMA'S GOVERNMENT & THE BUSINESS WORLD.

Without a government, what would people do?

Government has always played a major role in the lives of people; and without it, nothing could be considered as legal, because that was where laws and regulations came from.

Civic life could not be possible with just one person or a group of people setting up rules to govern a community. So long as members of society would contribute in the form of taxes to run any state or country, there must be an elected body that would be in place to utilize those funds in the best interest of all.

That would be to initiate authorized departments, like the police for internal law enforcement and the military for the defense and protection of the citizenry in times of war or any type of disturbance that affected the common good of the people.

That was what a government was basically for; to safeguard the interest of the whole and to maintain law and order; and therefore, to do away with that would make civilization to become grounded in the kingship days, when George lll of England thought he ruled the world.

That had started a revolution in the New World, which eventually led to the formation of the United States; a country that many people called home today and wanted it to advance in modern times as well.

To vilify government, unless it was a bad one, like an autocracy or a dictatorship, would be against the law, to put it mildly. People have the right to be critical of any institution set up for the sole purpose of providing services and amenities for those under its care. They could demonstrate their feelings; but they could not indulge in plotting against a fair minded and an equitable government.

That would bring us to the political conversation of President Barack Obama tauting the government by saying that its (government's) researchers created the Internet for individuals and companies to use and profit from it.

He even mentioned it one time only; as his focus was not on government per se. He used that as an example to indicate to those saying that he did not favor the business world. They said that he was "slighting" businesses and their owners by his comment that they did not ".... build that,"

He, like many other people, had the assumption that businesses, big and small, were being drawn to the Republican Party's propaganda that his administration was "anti-business". He had every reason to refute that as a fact; and then went on a rampage to illustrate that they (business owners) had achieved success with the "help" of others.

The very important word that was missing in his statement was "alone"; meaning that building a business could be an adventure or even a risk, for putting out so much money at the start, in many instances; and not withstanding the time, the effort and the patience for where the business would be headed from start throughout the flourishing of that business.

However, in all cases, they did not build those businesses just by themselves without the input of employees, laborers, construction companies, etc., etc.

Obama has kept his promise that he would be president for all the people, and he has demonstrated that by his, for example, payroll tax cut that had benefited both employers and workers in 2011.

His Affordable Care Act was also an indication that employers or companies have the responsibility to cater to the well being of their employees; and that they might share the burden of health care together, instead of leaving private insurance companies to infiltrate the industry and making incessant profits at their expense.

Mitt Romney, the presumptive candidate for the Republican Party in the 2012 presidential election, has vowed to repeal the ACT; and so, it would be senseless for businesses to make huge contributions toward his campaign.

The ACT has been designed to help all Americans; but because many business owners were allowing greed to seep into their minds, with the idea that they would be wasting their money on their own employees that were assisting them to stay in business, the individual mandate contained in it (ACT) should be eliminated.

However, how they could side with someone, who was threatening to repeal a law that has passed the U.S. Congress, and has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court was beyond any person's understanding.

That was what, to many Americans, the president was addressing; and for Romney to remain askance and pretend he did not know what the president was saying exactly, was completely dishonest.

His (Romney's) own remark, "Obama wants Americans to be 'ashamed of success'", gave him away; because he made it (remark) to give the impression that Obama did not appreciate the business world; but not everybody believed him.

Comments 11 comments

American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

When an employer hands out paychecks each week, that employer has fullfilled his obligatory contract with that person. This notion that business OWES something more to it's people is wrong. When you or I apply for a job and accept the conditions the proposed employer lays in the table then we are nothing more than a mere instrument for that business and have done so willingly. Others do now OWE me anything except for what was promised for my services. For me to expect more than what I bargained for is not right.

Obama hasn't a clue as to how business operates nor how it grows. He doesn't understand the sacrifice people go through in the pursuit of success. I


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi American Romance,

One does not have to be an expert of any kind to know how business operates.

In fact, business know-how is practically based on home economics; and only a little bit more.

Besides, "the sacrifice people go though," is also common knowledge; and to suggest that President Obama does not realize that, as well as "the pursuit of success", is rather insane on your part.

You must not forget that he is a consummate lawyer by profession and a previous U.S. Senator; and so, he has more experience of "success" than you care to give him credit for.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

ow sez: Government has always played a major role in the lives of people; and without it, nothing could be considered as legal, because that was where laws and regulations came from.

Jack replies: This is about as backwards view of freedom and rights as I have ever seen.

In a totalitarian government ow is correct: Every action and thought is illegal unless the government specifically makes it legal.

In a government that respects and understands freedom, every action and thought is legal unless the government specifically makes it illegal.

There is an universe of difference between the two philosophies, and which one would you, Dear Reader, rather live under? The ow understanding of government? -- or the traditional, American view that has prevailed for centuries?


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Jack Burton,

Whose "every action and thought" are we talking about; the people's or those of some magical entity sitting in a darkroom somewhere?

The people's rights and liberties are enshrined in what is generally called "The Constitution".

We have to get real here, because without good governance by an elected body, (such as the United States Congress, based on the Constitution) , nothing works in a civilized society.

Though, things do not always run smoothly, an elected body from which a government is formed, and from whom laws are enacted, is the only venue or vehicle for living in freedom.

"The government of the people by the people for the people" is what the U.S. has prevailed under for centuries. That is the living legacy of these United States. Anything else is bunkum.

In other words, lawlessness is not what America wants or stands for.


American Romance profile image

American Romance 4 years ago from America

owurakwasip, Do people really know? When I see unions laying claim to bounty that doesn't belong to them I wonder? Do YOU know? Do you know I worked 365 days a year? Yes that means every thanksgiving and Christmas and my family sacrificed! Do YOU know this? Do you know I worked with high temperatures and the flu numerous times? I needed every second in a 30 day period to pay the bills. 18 years later I had employees and was making good money. But I NEVER will forget those early days and Obamas government nor friends or family came to aid me. Read my latest hub, I tell the whole story. Most Americans are not willing to make those sacrifices, hence we have 57 million on welfare! Did you know my first tax year I discovered I was being punished JUST for opening a business? My CPA said it was called SELF EMPLOYMENT TAX! Did YOU know that ? I don't think you sincerely grasp what thousands upon thousands go through. This is the reason most business owners vote Republican.


Jack Burton profile image

Jack Burton 4 years ago from The Midwest

ow sez: Whose "every action and thought" are we talking about; the people's or those of some magical entity sitting in a darkroom somewhere?

Jack replies: The peoples, of course. Who else are we speaking about?

ow sez: The people's rights and liberties are enshrined in what is generally called "The Constitution".

Jack replies: No, you're confused about that point. Some of the people's rights and liberties are acknowledged in the Constitution. You can make the argument that, for instance, the right of the people to worship as they see fit didn't exist until the Bill of Rights but good luck with that one.

ow sez: We have to get real here, because without good governance by an elected body, (such as the United States Congress, based on the Constitution) , nothing works in a civilized society.

Jack replies: Got a cite for that? No, I didn't think so. But it isn't the issue that is being discussed anyway, so it is a moot point. The issue is that you believe that no one has rights until the government gives them those rights.

ow sez: T hough, things do not always run smoothly, an elected body from which a government is formed, and from whom laws are enacted, is the only venue or vehicle for living in freedom.

Jack replies: Part of the problem is that when you post "freedom" and other people use the same word, you have two different definitions.

ow sez: "The government of the people by the people for the people" is what the U.S. has prevailed under for centuries. That is the living legacy of these United States. Anything else is bunkum.

Jack replies: Do you understand that this means the government is under the authority of the people... and not the people are under the authority of the government? The government has no power, no authority, except that which is ceded to it under contract with the people... who can take that authority and power back when they choose, and especially when the government attempts to break its part of the contract.

In other words, lawlessness is not what America wants or stands for.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi Jack Burton,

I have tried to be straight with you, but you seem to be stuck in a rut of your own, and therefore, it will be difficult for me to help you there.

However, what I am driving at is very simple, that it is true that the rights and freedoms of the people are embodied in the U.S. Constitution and the "bill of rights"; but the real power belongs to the people.

However, the people by themselves without a government is impossible; hence, the election of a president and a Congress to enact laws and to handle the affairs of society or the country.

That does not take anything away from the people; and that is what "The government of the people by the people for the people" means. The marked word that we are discussing here is "government", and inferring that without it, society (or country) will collapse, and there will be no freedom of any kind.

There will only be bedlam; and is not what America wants.

Also, individual citizens can only express their freedom and liberties within the parameters of the law(s), which emanates from the elected body; meaning the U.S. Congress. The executive or government, headed by the president, protects and defends the Constitution.

The third branch is the U.S. Supreme Court, whose main duty is to safeguard the the legality of the Constitution.

Constitutional experts will bear me out on all three scores.

.... And that is what America stands for.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

You say

"However, how they could side with someone, who was threatening to repeal a law that has passed the U.S. Congress, and has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court was beyond any person's understanding."

ib----

The Obamacare act has not helped anyone, yet. It is doubtful that it really will be better than the current existing dismal system.

It is a TAX, just like SS and Medicare, and we know what the government did with both of these systems. It is ironic that Obama is going to steal from Medicare to partially fund Obamacare!

Congress is not credible, they passed two bailout bills for over 1.5 trillion dollars to save the economy, it didn't work.

The Supreme Court decision highlights the reason why 5-4 decisions of that court are worthless. You have four justices that disagree, so how is that a definitive validation of Obamacare.

The reasoning of Justice Robert to call it a TAX while the bill itself calls it a penalty is criminal on his part. The difference between tax and penalty is itself a legal issue.

The people that really needed the help were those that lost their jobs, their savings and their houses, but Obama didn't think of them. These people needed help during these last four years, yet Obama spent his democratic congress trump card not helping them.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

The United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts saw the political bullying that was going on, with respect to the Affordable Care Act by President Barack Obama, on one side, and a vicious gang that was sabotaging anything and everything Obama did, since he became president, on the other, and he (Roberts) decided to stop it.

He did not want his court to go down in history as part of that "gang".

Talking about "The people that really needed the help were those that lost their jobs, their savings and their houses," a majority of Americans would be hard pressed to believe that Obama has caused that to happen.

The truth was that those responsible were the John Boehners, the Eric Cantors, and of course, the Paul Ryans in the U.S. Congress, who would oppose him (Obama) on any issue.


ib radmasters profile image

ib radmasters 4 years ago from Southern California

owurakwasip

That isn't even a legal tenet for making a supreme court decision.

You appear not to be familiar with the law.

The reason that there was opposition to Obama's law is because it is a bad idea. No better the Social Security and Medicare as run by the government to the ground.

Obama is stealing three quarters of a billion dollars from Medicare to pay for his Obamacare. That is not fair to people on Medicare because it makes it difficult for them to find doctors that will take Medicare.


owurakwasip 4 years ago Author

Hi ib radmasters,

Medicare Trust Fund (Plan A) was always fiscally sound, until the Republicans decided to interfere with it, by cuts, resulting in the reduction of benefits to its current recipients.

There used to be a "yearly cost of living increase", due to inflation; but that was done away with in the notorious Paul Ryan budget plan.

In other words, there was always a surplus from the "fund" that could be used to support other social programs, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

The "cuts" in the Ryan plan would go to reduce the tax burden of the so called "wealthy or job creators", instead of using the proceeds to cover rising doctors' fees and high insurance premiums.

Thus mutilating Medicare to meet the "needs" of those undeserving of any kind of help, rather than those that the program was meant to serve; the elderly.

The quality of services was also affected, with prescription drugs potencies being diluted, or substituting brand name drugs with generic ones, for example.

The Affordable Care Act by the Obama administration avoided all the "crap" in the Ryan budget, making Medicare financially solvent and more equitable.

The individual mandatory law in "the Act" helped Chief Justice John Roberts to make his final decision on those, who deliberately failed to purchase health insurance, to pay a "tax", as a consequence.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working