environmentally sound. have had no real positive impact, just putting more control in the hands of the federal government which he is doing on all fronts and we need him to quit doing that and to quit being hostile, and threatening and increasing taxes. and let me point this out. this industry is terribly capital intensive industry. we invest more than 100 percent of our cash flow each year. we take all the cash employee and we borrow money. to take more taxes away means it will have ramifications and we will cut back activities and cut back on jobs and reduce supply and increase prices. it is nonsense. dave: thank you, john. nicole: we could be hiding two wars, high unemployment and high gasoline prices but my ghost those there is a brighter future ahead. dave: safety in the sky
the cash employee and middle class people and made them poor . i don t understand how anyone things that can work down the road. guest: really, what it will take is some kind of more general reform of the way that the governments kind run the economies, essentially, so whether it is pro growth economy, or collecting taxes that are actually on the books, that is part of the deal but this is almost, the greek situation is almost an experiment for what we will see elsewhere in terms of trying to use austerity as the instrument to get out of the mess. shepard: it sounds very much like what a lot of people are pushing around here, politicians are saying, cut, spend less, lower the size of the government. if all of those people work for government, what can we learn from this experiment they are having over there about downsizing at a time when there are no jobs? it seems ludicrous. guest: it is a risk but we have the the luxury of doing
guest: this started to help small business and it didn t do anything. we wanted to be able to reduce our expenses and we all it does is reduce expense force employees. neil: but it was supposed to help the employers? guest: it is supposed to help me. now, because they cannot help, our semester is three months, not two months now i do two sets of books and i have higher administration costs so uncertainty for small business be we have no cash employee and you cost me more money. you save my employee $20 and you cost me $2,000. neil: you are just whining? guest: not whining saying, again, they do the small little band-aids. this was very expensive. and where does it come from? the consumer. so you save them, here is 20 but i will bill you $100. neil: would you feel differently if originally the idea was employers were to enjoy a payroll tax cut holiday, but that is not happening now, would it make a difference to you? guest: i think if they took the whole subject and made a
$600 worth of business. you re trying to repeal that requirement. how is that going? well, first of all, this has been a law on the books, something similar since the 1940s. many small business owners have been complaining about a portion of it a long time because it requires, when you buy something, purchase any goods through a small business more than $600, you ve got to report that so that the irs can sort of keep tabs on tax compliance, and they know this is a lot of a cash employee and they want to make sure the federal government is taxes. that s not too bad, except what the health care business did i m sorry. it was on services. they want to extend it to good. anything you buy as a shawl business, a couple pair of scissors, supplies that would go over that amount, it s got the small business up in arms. they re right to be up in arms about it. we are going to repeal it. i m helping to lead that repeal. there s bipartisan support.