I figured the point would be lost on you. By all means, go live in a socialist utopia (an oxymoron, of ever there was one). But I'll be damned if I'll let you rob from me to give to someone who hasn't worked for it. You cite Enron et al for fleecing the American public, but what you condone is having the government do the same thing. Competition will drive the unethical corporations out of business... what will stop the government when it chooses to overreach?

Lent Visor--- point well made, sir. Thank you. This world is anything but black and white.

i think some of you are confusing right_to_work with at-will employment. but i get your meaning.

My husband own his family's business, and recently had to lay off half his staff, including a woman who babysat him as a child. He pays nearly 50% of his revenue to taxes. We both voted Obama because some things are more important than profit. My favorite book in the 8th grade was Atlas Shrugged but there comes a time to grow up and apply those principals compassionately. Or don't expect any for yourself.Thinking in absolutes is a hallmark of immaturity.

I do not know if those that voted for Obama were aware of the unintended consequences Neal explains, but I am certain that Obama and the other socialists are very aware of the consequences their tax increases will create. More people on welfare and more power to them.

tats: I think what Neil means is not the person with a tattoo on an upper arm or back. i think he speaks more of those with sleeves and other visible tats.

taxes: you would never tell someone they are being fired because they voted for Obama or whomever. Neil's point was if you are the owner and your employees talks about loving obama or voting for them...you take that into consideration. Then you make up the reason whether it is for cause or layoffs due to the economy

David Hughes:

Your comment would make sense if our only choice was anarchy or slavery, or if we were animals with no choices. Fortunately, we can have a government that prevents businesses from destroying people's lives while still allowing business to exist and prosper and people to be independent. Trying to live like an animal and assume that everything that happens just has to be how it is is idiotic. People, in a big sense, don't have to have their money stolen, or lose everything they have due to others incompetence, but, yes, that is what will happen without regulation.

And, no, the market is not going to encourage the good and force out the bad. There will always be corruption, and massive giveaways to incompetents at the top, and as long as the company is still profitable they will stay. People complain about government corruption, and justly. But corporations are in many cases much more corrupt.

But more than that, a business's success is based on making money. In theory, that would mean providing the best service at the most competitive price. In reality, that is not even close to always being the case. A health insurance company can collect your money for decades and refuse to give you what is due when you need it, and your ability to fight it is very limited even if it is blatantly illegal. And no, there is not always a better choice in your "free market". Or a business can destroy the environment and leave everyone else to fix the problems. And from a business perspective, that is good. Which doesn't meant that businesses are pure evil, but that we need a government to prevent them from destroying the environment or defrauding customers.

Plus, a government is necessary for a company to exist and make money in a free market. There is no reason that the government should work only to facilitate business and not do anything to ensure a standard of living for actual people.

A more realistic analogy for the Republican position is some kind of sick zoo where they lock everything in a cage for the lions to eat, and protect and take care of the lions. The real best choice would be for the animals to live in the wild but make sure none of them eat each other. Of course, animals can't do that. People can.

I don't base my concept of "freedom" solely on trivia like economics.

If you can't see that deregulation and lack of oversight (i.e., accountability to the public) are bad things in a society, I can't help you much. I guess Enron, WorldCom, Blackwater, the current housing crisis, etc., weren't enough examples of the folly of letting corporations "regulate themselves."

Maybe you have blind faith that corporations will always do what's best for society. I do not.

Obviously you majored in poli-sci and not economics. Most of my friends, neighbors, and colleagues are middle class (as am I), and will be hurt tremendously by tax hikes on businesses. The meager $13/week tax credit we may get will do little to rebuild our already damaged 401k and stock portfolios, but let's ignore that and just talk brass tacks. Who do you think is going to get socked in the wallet on consumer goods and services when these soon-to-be" over-regulated, over-taxed business owners have to make up for their loss in profits (most of which are used to support or expand the business)? If you said the "average Joe," middle class American, you get an 'A' in comprehension. You're being fooled into thinking that the government is looking out for you, while they're picking your pocket. You'll feel it, sooner or later.

The argument against "l-f" capitalism is just plain idiotic. Booms and busts SHOULD be allowed to occur. It's the natural order of all things in the universe. Will people get hurt when a company folds, a CEO flees to Brazil with the shareholders' money, or something simply goes awry in the business world? Sure. There will always be ethical business owners and unethical. The market will eventually force the bad out and allow the good to flourish, and some of us will get burnt in the process. How is it in any way fair or natural for us to all be on a level playing field (especially when that puts the federal government in a position to fleece all of its citizenry)? Let me use an analogy that even a 12 year-old can comprehend... it uses the element of "feelings," so liberals should be able to connect. Think of any population of wild animals on the globe--- lions, tigers, bears (oh my). Is it better for these animals to remain in the wild, where they could become some other animal's lunch, or put them in a zoo, where they can be cared for 'round the clock by largely inept zookeepers? If you could ask the animals, I'm sure they'd say they would rather take their chances in the wild. A lot of voters in this country seem to like the idea of being kept in an enclosure, being hand fed by the government while they get fat and lazy, and lose all trace of what is natural... inherent... freedom. You may like the idea of being ensnared and hauled off to a confined government pen to be provided with rations of oats and hay, but the more sane among us would rather take our chances with a free market. Are we going to be jumped by a bigger predator or get a thorn caught in our paws out in the wild someday? Maybe. But it's a hell of a lot better than spending the rest of our lives in captivity. Think about it.

I doubt you'll get far, and if you get rid of the wrong person, it'll definitely backfire.

I'm glad I'm not in a RTW state for once.

Copyleft, We have never had a true Laissez faire economy. Government has always intervened. The reason capitalism has succeeded so well is it works for everyone - IF they work it and do so ethically, morally and legally. That makes it resilient enough to withstand government "help." Government interventions in the economy are the primary causes of boom and bust cycles. Read von Mises and Hayek to learn how that works. For condensed versions read "Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlit or "Whatever Happened to Penny Candy" or the other "Uncle Eric" series by Richard J. Maybury.

I'm so happy that you can enjoy the death of freemarket capitalism. I thought "Atlas Shugs" was a work of fiction not a glimpse into americas future. You should read it, but if its too tough for your leftist pea brain I think there are still "cliff notes" available. The congressional leadership, who have a record of f*cking up 95% of everything they ever touched going back 100 years,are now going to fix things?
Most of which they caused! Sorry, I have little faith in the republican leadership to fix this mess and none in the democrats who even refuse to admit they share any blame for it.History shows us what needs to be done and if our leaders would study it rather than rewriting it we wouldn't be looking at becoming a third world,socialist nation. Instead the left gives us chants like the mantra "Bush lied and people died".Enjoy it while you can copyleft cause none of the leftist socialist examples around the world are shinning examples of utopia and most show the collapse of "privileges" for all its people. Heres a mantra to try on "Obama lies and America dies". Maybe not as catchy but most "producers" are to busy producing to march and chant like the "consumers" sucking off the taxpaying producers. Oh well, read "Atlas Shrugs" copyleft,you'll love the ending.

Tattoos do not make you a bad employee or a bad citizen.
I have never understood how someone so intelligent can be so blinded by a personal predjudice against tattoos.

You are on point with most things, but this is your blind spot.

why were you planning on hiring more employees, mark? increased production, or just for the fun of it. i will assume for increased sales support. ok, lets say u dont hire them,.. then what?

We just shoot them.

Save on all the medical expense down the road....

(except Prezbo. He gets executive immunity)

Yes, the Obama budget plan will help me. It includes the largest middle-class tax cuts in history, and I'm middle-class.

More importantly, the economic agenda includes better oversight and regulation, which will better protect the middle class from the wild extremes of laissez-faire capitalism (i.e., the "booms and busts" cycle we've been enduring).

You'll notice my emphasis on the "middle class." That's because, despite Neal's repeated (and heated) protests to the contrary, THAT is the segment that matters most to a healthy economy. Not the rich, or the "achievers" as the right currently likes to call them.

Look at John's argument, for example. He claims that the "evil rich will ony pass their increased taxation off on the rest of the country." By that logic, of course, the rich should never be asked to pay ANY taxes whatsoever. Sorry, but I don't agree that the people who benefit the most from living in our society owe it nothing in return.

So, Copyleft and Stan. I take it that your okay with Obamanomics?? How does this help you??? I'm searching for real answeres not kneejerk drivel that your used to spewing.

FANTASTIC POST! I agree 100%. I don't need to lay off any employees but if and when i hire again, i'm going to put a field asking whom the potential employee voted for and promptly throw all Obama voters in the trash. Thanks Neil. Keep up the great work!

To see your pathetic, petty revenge schemes playing out in your frenzied imagination is like a plateful of prime rib, Neal.

The thought that some of the unearned privileges of the privileged class might be--gasp!--TAKEN AWAY has you shrieking in outrage and fear.

Well done, President Obama. A second helping, please.

I think it is a bona fide occupational quality to not be a liberal. Fire away!

He should get rid of Royal. He's a whiny black man with nothing better to do than to look at Obama as Jesus Christ. He falls in the typical 98% of black racists.

...like Georgia, you can fire anybody for any reason....
Lawsuits never stand up in Right to work states so feel free to have your Obama voting employees kissing concrete and the piece of mind in knowing that we are a Right to Work state and not a complete mess like California.

If one of your employees on the bubble voted for Obama, he would probably appreciate being fired so he could collect unemployment and Obama Welfare.

I agree with Neal.. I am a small business owner who employs 30 employees currently. The combination of tax increases and the economic downturn is causing my company to not only review everyone's performance but also scale back our initial plans for hiring more people in 2009. I had originally planned for hiring 11 new positions this year. I don't envision that will be happening anymore. Higher taxes means limiting the growth of my company. Money I would have put to a new employee is now being allocated to the IRS.

Even with the "secret" ballots that we cast it will be easy enough to identify those that voted for this socialist policy maker. Just take a walk through the employee parking lot! NRA...they can stay, those little rainbow stickers...good bet on who THEY voted for.

Don't forget to add that some of us will not be buying anything expensive, doing upgrades on our houses, or for that matter; trying to earn more.

I see myself leaving the ranks of the employed by 2011 since I will only be working to pay more taxes.

Fair Tax!

So does that mean you're getting rid of Royal?