2012 Elections

[Carpet_pissr]

Quick slam (and different take on the situation than the angle we took here) on DeMint from The Economist:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democrac ... stageright" target="_blank

[Kraken]

Word has come down that John Kerry is to become SecState. No surprise there; he's well qualified and should sail to easy confirmation.

What makes this interesting (and at least marginally appropriate for this thread) is the newly opened MA Senate seat. Our governor will appoint someone to keep it warm for four months while we gear up for a special election. That election will very likely be won by...Scott Brown, the same guy who was just turned out. (Nobody with star power is running on the Dem side, voters don't have to fear Republicans gaining control of the Senate, and the low turnout in special elections makes it unlikely that the Dem machine can award it to a second-stringer.)

That opens up this scenario:

2010: Scott Brown runs for the Senate to finish out Ted Kennedy's term, and wins.
2012: Scott Brown defends the seat and loses.
2013: Scott Brown runs to finish out John Kerry's term, and wins.
2014: Scott Brown defends the seat and...?

The poor guy might do nothing but campaign for five years. If he does win and hold the seat, he's worked harder for it than anybody I've ever seen.

One possible curveball: Bill Weld is back in town. While he will probably defer to Brown, he hasn't actually ruled out making a run for that seat. Weld was a popular and competent governor who will be an immediate contender if he decides to go for it. Scott Brown is called a "Bill Weld Republican," but Bill Weld is the real McCoy.

[Canuck]

I wonder if the current fiscal debate will sour a lot of people who would normally have voted for a Republican.

[Kraken]

Our Republicans aren't like other Republicans...or so they need to convince us if they hope to win. MA Republicans run as the social liberal/fiscal conservatives that so many people say they want -- they run against their own party's orthodoxy as much as against the Dems. So the national party's shenanigans shouldn't hurt Brown too much.

Mitt Romney doesn't count.

The main factor, though, is that the only star candidates on the Dem side are not going to run. Brown has the money, the organization, and the popularity that make him the front-runner before the job is even announced.

[Kraken]

Thought you guys would enjoy this lengthy analysis of why Romney lost.

Latest development in the fate of Kerry's seat: Ted Kennedy's son Edward Jr. is said to be interested in taking it. That's the only name on the Dem side that might prevent Brown from walking away with it. Us Massholes love us some Kennedys.

[Captain Caveman]

Joe Biden, charming or seedy? You make the call:

Biden swears in senators, hits on grandmas

[triggercut]

Joe Biden, charming or seedy? You make the call:

Biden swears in senators, hits on grandmas

Joe Biden loves being Joe Biden, and I don't blame him one bit.

[Kraken]

Joe Biden, charming or seedy? You make the call:

Biden swears in senators, hits on grandmas

Joe Biden loves being Joe Biden, and I don't blame him one bit.

That's retail politics, and he's a natural.

[Zarathud]

This is why my wife's family in Delaware loves Joe Biden. He would always be out shaking people's hands at the state fair, and enjoying himself immensely.

They're also happy with decision by Joe's son, Beau Biden, to continue as Delaware Attorney General instead of running for his dad's Senate seat. As Attorney General, they were in the middle of prosecuting Earl Bradley, a pediatrician and pedophilia suspect who videotaped himself:

On June 23, 2011, Bradley was convicted on all 24 counts on a consolidated indictment (which originally contained 529 counts): 14 counts of rape, seven counts of assault, and three counts of sexual exploitation of a child.

On August 26, 2011, [Judge] Carpenter sentenced Bradley to the maximum sentence of 14 consecutive terms of life in prison plus a further 165 years in prison without parole

[Carpet_pissr]

I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.




Sent from mobile

[Anonymous Bosch]

I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.

[El Guapo]

Who's up for Biden TV?

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:
authorize the production of a recurring television program featuring Vice President Joe Biden
Vice President Joe Biden has a demonstrated ability to bring people together, whether at the negotiating table or at the neighborhood diner. We, therefore, urge the Obama Administration to authorize the production of a recurring C-SPAN television program featuring the daily activities and interactions of the Vice President with elected officials, foreign dignitaries and everyday American families. Such a program would educate the American public about the duties and responsibilities of their Vice President, while providing a glimpse of the lighthearted side of politics even in the midst of contentious and divisive national debates.

Created: Jan 04, 2013

How much would you wager that this petition was created by Joe Biden?

[hepcat]

The Onion already ran quite a few articles on the personal life and times of The Joe.

[GreenGoo]

I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.

It's not that I necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure the market, economy and people in general would have been happier just going over the cliff, so to speak.

[silverjon]

The Onion already ran quite a few articles on the personal life and times of The Joe.

Have they caught that's he's also a clever hip hop artist?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zedylKPhBt4" target="_blank

[YellowKing]

I'm probably old-fashioned, but I hold Presidential offices in higher regard than most Democrats apparently do. I don't think it's "funny" or "cool" to ask the President about what underwear he's wearing or chuckle at the "drunk uncle" routine of Biden. Maybe the politicians themselves don't earn it, but we should at least pretend to have some modicum of decency and respect for the Presidential office in this country.

I don't find Biden's "antics" amusing in the slightest. He's a buffoon that doesn't give a rat's ass about the office he's holding.

[El Guapo]

What is Biden's "drunk uncle" routine?

[Rip]

I have always liked the guy. And as crappy a deal as both sides feel the fiscal cliff bill is, both sides seem to acknowledge he was the driving force behind getting SOMEthing cobbled together since the typical party leader knuckleheads couldn't.

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is unworthy of any praise, as it was a colossal failure on every level; it did not reduce the deficit, it did not cut debt or even touch the debt ceiling, it did nothing in terms of entitlement reform, it delayed sequestration, and also included a bunch of irresponsible additional pork. 'SOMEthing' may've been done, but that's a far cry from 'SOMEthing even remotely worthwhile' getting done. If anything, it represents a nadir in American politics, crammed with exactly the sort of sad-sack posturing that we have come to expect from our elected officials.

It's not that I necessarily disagree, but I'm not sure the market, economy and people in general would have been happier just going over the cliff, so to speak.

Most of them still don't believe their taxes are going up. They think it is just the wealthy that will be paying more this year. There are a lot of people in for a rude awakening.

Middle-class workers will take a bigger hit to their income proportionately than those earning between $200,000 and $500,000 under the new fiscal cliff deal, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.
Earners in the latter group will pay an average 1.3 percent more - or an additional $2,711 - in taxes this year, while workers making between $30,000 and $200,000 will see their paychecks shrink by as much as 1.7 percent - or up to $1,784 - the D.C.-based think tank reported.
Overall, nearly 80 percent of households will pay more money to the federal government as a result of the fiscal cliff deal.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -deal.html

[noxiousdog]

so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?

Oh noz!

(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)

[Rip]

so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?

Oh noz!

(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)

I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.

[Isgrimnur]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

[coopasonic]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

[Rip]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

[El Guapo]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

[AWS260]

Here's a handy chart of the impact of the new tax law on take-home pay at various income levels.

[Rip]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.

[LordMortis]

While I won't be ecstatic to lose that kind of money and it will change my life, fix the fucking debt and do it while not growing government. I'll take that at my part if it helps to fix the fucking debt. When I see federal budget growing as they take a bigger and bigger portion of my income then we'll have a problem.

If I am reading correctly, we seem to plan to increase operating expenses by 12-15% every year. Who the hell gets a 12-15% raise every year to keep up with that kind of spending increase? That suggests to me that they're going to need more taxes again later to keep staying behind.

http://federal-budget.findthedata.org/" target="_blank

And why is it every sector but government and health care seems to be doing more with less? What are they missing that every other sector is getting?

[El Guapo]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.

Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.

Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.

[silverjon]

Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.

Hmph. Totally stolen from Eddie Izzard's UK space program... sending a man in a tracksuit up a ladder.

[Rip]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.

Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.

Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.

You must not actually listen to the POTUS.

This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/

[noxiousdog]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?

[Rip]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?

Sure, at least it would save my grand-kids having theirs cut by 20% down the road.

[El Guapo]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.

Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.

Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.

You must not actually listen to the POTUS.

This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/

That's not going down, that was about them not going up.

But I do agree that it's madness that the payroll tax is going up. I take it you agree that letting the payroll tax go up was bad?

[coopasonic]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?

Sure, at least it would save my grand-kids having theirs cut by 20% down the road.

Yes, I have no problem with that. I have a substantial 401k. I'll survive. Assuming some day they go ahead with means testing for social security (or the more expected total economic collapse), I'm unlikely to get it anyway.

Realistically I'm not sure how the payroll tax will impact me this year. I'm not expecting my employer to announce a 2% across the board pay cut, though I suppose they could... and with 40,000 employees the money has to come from somewhere.

[stessier]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?

Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...

I agree though, the 2% was a short term cut that couldn't possibly be expected to be extended forever. And the longer it lasted, the more people would have gotten used to not paying it. Better to re-implement it now.

[El Guapo]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Those of us in the $1,784 range aren't thrilled. $150/mo is a lot of money to take away, like pretty much all of my fun money. I'm about a month away from finding out what my raise and bonus are. Maybe I won't care so much. 31 months of full time day care left!

So, do you want your social security benefits cut by 2%?

Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...

I agree though, the 2% was a short term cut that couldn't possibly be expected to be extended forever. And the longer it lasted, the more people would have gotten used to not paying it. Better to re-implement it now.

Why? The economy's still bad. If it's tough to re-implement the payroll tax cut when the economy is better, then get the revenue somewhere else - bump capital gains by .5% or something.

[stessier]

Except you'd be cutting current benefits by 2%, right? I'm not sure my zombie proofing will work on enraged AARP members...

I agree though, the 2% was a short term cut that couldn't possibly be expected to be extended forever. And the longer it lasted, the more people would have gotten used to not paying it. Better to re-implement it now.

Why? The economy's still bad. If it's tough to re-implement the payroll tax cut when the economy is better, then get the revenue somewhere else - bump capital gains by .5% or something.

Define "bad". It's better than it was when the tax was dropped. If you want to redefine how we pay for SS, that's fine, but it's also a bigger discussion.

[Rip]

Math fail. 1.7% of $30k is $510. At that percentage rate, you have to make $104,941.18 to lose $1,84.

Assuming an hourly worker getting 26 paychecks a year, it's $19.62 less per pay period.

The point is NO ONE had their taxes go down except for maybe those living off the state.

I don't think anyone was talking about taxes going down - that's not what happens when you're trying to reduce a deficit.

That said, that (apparently) no one was advocating renewing the payroll tax given the continued economic doldroms is disheartening.

Trying to reduce the deficit? Really? There has been ZERO done that will reduce the deficit in any meaningful way. Might as well be trying to build a stairway to the moon.

Point is that no one on any side of the aisle was talking about taxes going down during the negotiations, so it's hardly surprising that the eventual deal...did not involve taxes going down.

Also, I'm totally for building a stairway to the moon.

You must not actually listen to the POTUS.

This afternoon, President Obama spoke while surrounded by an ad hoc group of “middle-class Americans” who he promised would be protected from tax hikes by the 11th-hour “fiscal cliff” proposal. That’s not what’s going to happen.
“For the last few days, leaders in both parties have been working toward an agreement that will prevent a middle-class tax hike from hitting 98 percent of all Americans starting tomorrow,” he said. “Preventing that tax hike has been my top priority, because the last thing folks, like the folks up here on this stage, can afford right now is to pay an extra $2,000 in taxes next year.” The agreement that’s been unveiled, however, would “make sure the taxes don’t go up on middle-class families,” he continued.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... dle-class/

That's not going down, that was about them not going up.

But I do agree that it's madness that the payroll tax is going up. I take it you agree that letting the payroll tax go up was bad?

Ummm but they did go up and not just on middle class but pretty far down the ladder although admittedly not as much. I would argue that much of the higher earners will make it up since they have much more control over their income. They will raise prices, cut costs, and expand less. For the upper levels these guys don't even spend 20% of their income maintaining there way of life. For those barely making enough to maintain their way of life this will be very hard and I think they will be double hit when the hoped for recovery becomes another recession with an inflation chaser.

China is all loaded up to play hell with the dollar.

Wondering why gold at $1850 is cheap, or why gold at double that price will also be cheap, or frankly at any price? Because, as the following leaked cable explains, gold is, to China at least, nothing but the opportunity cost of destroying the dollar's reserve status. Putting that into dollar terms is, therefore, impractical at best, and illogical at worst. We have a suspicion that the following cable from the US embassy in China is about to go not viral but very much global, and prompt all those mutual fund managers who are on the golden sidelines to dip a toe in the 24 karat pool. The only thing that matters from China's perspective is that "suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar's role as the international reserve currency. China's increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB." Now, what would happen if mutual and pension funds finally comprehend they are massively underinvested in the one asset which China is without a trace of doubt massively accumulating behind the scenes is nothing short of a worldwide scramble, not so much for paper, but every last ounce of physical gold...

From Wikileaks:

3. CHINA'S GOLD RESERVES

"China increases its gold reserves in order to kill two birds with one stone"

"The China Radio International sponsored newspaper World News Journal (Shijie Xinwenbao)(04/28): "According to China's National Foreign Exchanges Administration China 's gold reserves have recently increased. Currently, the majority of its gold reserves have been located in the U.S. and European countries. The U.S. and Europe have always suppressed the rising price of gold. They intend to weaken gold's function as an international reserve currency. They don't want to see other countries turning to gold reserves instead of the U.S. dollar or Euro. Therefore, suppressing the price of gold is very beneficial for the U.S. in maintaining the U.S. dollar's role as the international reserve currency. China's increased gold reserves will thus act as a model and lead other countries towards reserving more gold. Large gold reserves are also beneficial in promoting the internationalization of the RMB."

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/wikileaks ... ying-spree

[gbasden]

so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?

Oh noz!

(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)

I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.

I thought that those people were part of the 48% of leeches that paid no taxes? How does the GOP get to simultaniously hold that these people are a burden on productive society and then complain when their taxes are raised?

In all seriousness, I'm glad that the payroll tax holiday was ended. I'd rather have seen them increase capital gains, as El Guapo mentioned, but at least we are starting to deal with the unsustainable tax rates that have been in place for a decade. I wish they hadn't made the lower end of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, though.

[Rip]

so you're saying we'll get 98 cents of our remaining dollars instead of the full dollar?

Oh noz!

(and it was considered a temporary recession move anyway)

I can assure you for someone making 30K taking away 1-2K IS a big deal.

I thought that those people were part of the 48% of leeches that paid no taxes? How does the GOP get to simultaniously hold that these people are a burden on productive society and then complain when their taxes are raised?

In all seriousness, I'm glad that the payroll tax holiday was ended. I'd rather have seen them increase capital gains, as El Guapo mentioned, but at least we are starting to deal with the unsustainable tax rates that have been in place for a decade. I wish they hadn't made the lower end of the Bush Tax Cuts permanent, though.

Doesn't matter that much to me. It is political masturbation. They didn't deal with the real issues as usual. I don't pay a payroll tax as I don't collect payroll, I am a self-employed consultant.

I will say that stuff like this is what helped me decide to go from employing three or four people back to going it alone. No way I would consider being a small employer in this environment.