# 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!


http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll604.xml


----------



## theHawk (Dec 3, 2010)

Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III ?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

theHawk said:


> Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III ?


No, that was today's vote on extending the Bush Tax Cuts.  The Regressive Party overwhelmingly voted against continuing the tax cuts. 

They voted to raise everyone's taxes.


----------



## liebuster (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!
> 
> 
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll604.xml



Your link goes to a bill about airports, not raising taxes


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!
> ...


Yeah, it's a bad link on Speaker Pelosi's website:

The Gavel  Blog Archive  House Passes Middle Class Tax Cuts 234-188

It's the _The Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010.  _But the numbers are the same.  Was this tax cut extention part of the airport bill?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!
> ...


it was likely attached to it
and this was nothing but a power play by the dems
so assholes like the OP could make hay with it


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


see why these things shouldn't be attached to unrelated bills?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


What ploy?  The House scheduled a vote, just like the Regressives wanted.

And 168 Regressives voted to raise EVERYBODY's taxes.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...


stick you "regressive" bullshit up your ass
you TOOL


----------



## liebuster (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...



Without researching this I believe this is the bill that the repubs voted against because it only included tax cuts for the middle and not for everyone. They are going to allow the democrats to raise taxes on the rich which isn't going to help small buisnesses and jobs.

In my opinion the republicans didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot like the dems are doing.......AGAIN!!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That is false.  This is a tax cut that affects everybody.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


nope, it doesnt


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Wrong, the Dems in the House only want the tax to remain the same for those making 250000 or less. MORON.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...



Yes, it does.  Everyone gets the same tax cut up to 250k.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...



Which means that everybody, MORON, gets the tax cut up to 250k ... even those making more than it.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

Do you need a remedial course in how our tax brackets work, RGS?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> Do you need a remedial course in how our tax brackets work, RGS?


if that were the case, why would people close to the next bracket do everything they can to avoid going into it

you are wrong


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you need a remedial course in how our tax brackets work, RGS?
> ...



Dude, I'm right.  Look it up how our tax brackets work.  Everyone is taxed the same on the same income earned.  *The tax increase for is only for income earned over 250k.  The first 250k is taxed just like the rest of us.*


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


that is not how it is
you go into the next bracket, your entire income is taxed at that rate


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Once again for the terminally stupid. That means if they do not make permanent or extend all the taxes as now that those making more then 250000 pay MORE starting next year. A higher percent. Every dollar over that mark goes into a higher bracket.

But you already know that and are trying to confuse the gullible.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



LMAO

Not it's not.  Whoever told you that is lying.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They get the same tax cut everybody else gets up to 250k.  Everyone still gets a tax cut, including +250k earners, and that's a fact, Jack.


----------



## xotoxi (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Tax Brackets (Federal Income Tax Rates) 2000 through 2009 and 2010



> To take an example, suppose your taxable income (after deductions and  exemptions) was exactly $100,000 in 2008 and your status was Married  filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
> 
> ($ 8,025   minus         0 )   x .10 :      $    802.50
> ( 32,550   minus     8,025 )   x .15 :  3,678.75
> ...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


then that is something thats been changed
because i remember having LESS net income by making just a few dollars over the next bracket


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



It isn't something that has been changed.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...


it was likely before your time of paying taxes


----------



## elvis (Dec 3, 2010)

The Tax Foundation - U.S. Federal Individual Income Tax Rates History, 1913-2010


----------



## elvis (Dec 3, 2010)

It looks like it's been stepped since 1913.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Or my great-grandfather's


----------



## asterism (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



That's the because the rate charged in the next bracket on income in that bracket is progressively more.  Income tax has been stepped like this for decades.  It doesn't change the fact that raising taxes on income over $250K is still a tax increase, not a tax cut.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


If by "remember" you mean "imagine" you might have a point, but you will still be dead wrong!


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III ?
> ...



Nope...they voted not to allow some of our taxes to be raised. 

Voting against that does not mean that a no vote is voting to raise taxes because voting yes would have done so.

You can't rationalize this folks. Nobody is getting a tax cut. This was a vote to raise taxes for the upper income Americans. The same Americans that provide your jobs. This is the primary reason unemployment is so high. No employer feels safe enough to hire anyone because of this uncertainty.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

The House passed an extension of the Bush-era Tax Cuts for the Middle Class by vote of 234 to 188.

93% of Republicans voted against the tax cut extension.

90% of Democrats voted for the tax cut extension.

House Vote 604 - To Extend Bush-era Tax Cuts for Middle Class - NYTimes.com


----------



## editec (Dec 3, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


 
What a load of partisan nonsense.

People aren't hiring because there aren't customers enough to warrant new jobs.

That isn't an uncertainty problem, that's a certainty problem.


----------



## liebuster (Dec 3, 2010)

Boy oh boy. You guys love to argue semantics. Heres the deal. 

The middle class is not getting a tax cut. END OF STORY. They are just having their taxes remain the same. 

The Upper class, at least the way this bill stands, will be having their taxable income rate go up. END OF STORY.

So you can look at this a couple of ways. The republicans voted against raising taxes forsome and keeping them the same for others   AND  The democrats voted to raise taxes for some and keep them the same for others. 

*The 168 republicans DID NOT VOTE FOR ANYTHING like the thread title would suggest. This is a lame attempt at trying to make the republicans out as something that didn't do.*


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

editec said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Employers don't hire workers to make goods and provide services they don't have customers for.   We need more people spending money on consumer goods and services and the best way to do that is to provide generous financial relief for the unemployed.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Boy oh boy. You guys love to argue semantics. Heres the deal.
> 
> The middle class is not getting a tax cut. END OF STORY. They are just having their taxes remain the same.
> 
> ...



The 168 Republicans voted for higher taxes for the middle class by voting against extending Bush Era tax cuts for the middle class.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> see why these things shouldn't be attached to unrelated bills?



It wasn't attached to it, it was an amendment to a Senate amendment to a bill that originated in the House. The House stripped out the text of the old bill and inserted the next text of a new bill, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2010. This happens all the time.

You can follow the evolution of H.R. 4853 but only the fifth (final) version in that list matters. If you click on it to read the text, you'll see it wasn't attached to anything. The vote was solely on the tax provisions.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...


Sure it does. It affects the first $250,000 of everyone's income. It keeps the current tax rate on the first $250,000 of everyone's income.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > Do you need a remedial course in how our tax brackets work, RGS?
> ...


Because they aren't very bright?


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


That is bullshit. Do you even earn income? OMFG! Talk to your accountant or hire one if you don't have one.


----------



## Ravi (Dec 3, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...


I'm not surprised that you are stupid enough to think this but I am surprised at dcon.


----------



## liebuster (Dec 3, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Boy oh boy. You guys love to argue semantics. Heres the deal.
> ...



What ever. If you want to spin it that way, fine. 

The reason they didn't vote for this bill is because it was a tax hike on some americans and they didn't want to put their name on a bill with tax hikes. 

They actually voted their principles first, which they have had a problem doing in the pass. 

I say bravo to them.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 3, 2010)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



Somehow I suspect those are the people who are most vocal when it comes to tax policy.


----------



## Granny (Dec 3, 2010)

Comprehension of what one is reading is a good thing.


----------



## Zoom-boing (Dec 3, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > mudwhistle said:
> ...



The best way for people to spend money on goods/services is for those who are unemployed to get a job and spend _their own money_ on it.


----------



## theHawk (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III ?
> ...



I see, so when the Repubs introduce a bill that extends the "tax cuts" (in reality just the current tax rate) to all and Dems all vote against it you'll no doubt start another thread decrying how Dems voted to raise everyone's taxes right?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...





Nope your facts are wrong , this bill lowered everyones taxes including the wealthy.

They would get their first 250,000 of income at the lower tax rates.

The Rs voted to raise taxes on the wealthy too.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...



You're a fucking liar. Republicans want to keep the current tax rate for everyone. The democrats hates rich people and small businesses and want to tax the hell out of them.

Why do you liberal fucks have to lie?


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 3, 2010)

Why do you say they hate rich people when this bill included a tax cut for them?


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> it was a tax hike


You lie.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Republicans want to keep the current tax rate for everyone.


 If that were true, they would have voted for the amendment which extends the current rates for 98% of the taxpayers.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 3, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> The democrats hates rich people and small businesses and want to tax the hell out of them.


Dude, I possess enormous wealth and earn millions each year.  The increase in my federal income tax rate, if the Bush tax cuts expire, wouldn't even come to close to taxing the hell out of me.

PS: I earn millions each year from municipal bonds, none of which is even subject to the federal income tax.


----------



## edthecynic (Dec 3, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


Democrats ARE the rich people according to Heritage.org, so what do you care if they want to tax the hell out of themselves???

Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich | The Heritage Foundation
November 6, 2007
*Democrats wake up to being the party of the rich*
by Michael Franc

*More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households.* Using Internal Revenue Service data, the Heritage Foundation identified two categories of taxpayers - single filers with incomes of more than $100,000 and married filers with incomes of more than $200,000 - and combined them to discern where the wealthiest Americans live and who represents them.
*Democrats now control the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions. More than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats control both Senate seats.*


----------



## theHawk (Dec 3, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The democrats hates rich people and small businesses and want to tax the hell out of them.
> ...



Exactly.  The so called "super-rich" don't even make money from "income".  

Unless spending is cut drastically this whole debate over whether or not we put a 39% tax or a 35% tax on people who earn 250k in income is such a waste of time.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Why do you say they hate rich people when this bill included a tax cut for them?



There is no tax cut you dumbfuck. The issue is whether or not to keep the current tax rate and not let it expire. Letting it expire would mean a tax increase. 


Damn you're stupid!


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans want to keep the current tax rate for everyone.
> ...



What part of "for everyone" did you not understand?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 3, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > The democrats hates rich people and small businesses and want to tax the hell out of them.
> ...



Not everyone has the millions you have.

With an average return of 4 to 5 percent I think you're full of shit.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...


Yes, it does.  Every single American gets a tax cut on the first $250,000.

Do you have any more FAIL to spread?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...


You're an idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


The wingnuts here are some of the stupidest on the internets!


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Wrong, idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I guess Sean Hannity lied to you.  I'm so sorry.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Boy oh boy. You guys love to argue semantics. Heres the deal.
> 
> The middle class is not getting a tax cut. END OF STORY. They are just having their taxes remain the same.
> 
> ...


They voted against cutting taxes.  That means they voted to raise taxes.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



No.  He doesn't.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Granny said:


> Comprehension of what one is reading is a good thing.


They believe that reading comprehension is elitist.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you say they hate rich people when this bill included a tax cut for them?
> ...


The taxes were scheduled to go up, by Republican design.

The Democrats removed that schedule, keeping the taxes from going up.

Thank you, House Democrats!  Thank you Speaker Pelosi!


----------



## McDowell's (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Why are these dumbasses trying to cut taxes when tax cuts are bad for the economy and don't pay for themselves?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

McDowell's said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


Changing tactics in mid-thread?


----------



## rdean (Dec 3, 2010)

Congressman Steve King

Watching Rep. Congressman Steve King on "The Last Word" was a hoot.  Stevie said number one priority should be taxes to those making over 250,000 a year.  The host asked him how many in his district were millionaires?  He said he didn't know.  

It was pointed out that only 1% of the people in his district made OVER two hundred thousand.  That means those making over 250 thousand were way less than 1%. 

Steve King was asked if he was willing to hold up unemployment in his district AND increase taxes for everyone else over tax breaks for less than 1% of his constituents.  

Of course he refused to answer.  Then King went on a rant that the CBO said the Dream Act will cost 20 billion dollars, which he even has on his web site..  The host said the official press release by the CBO was that it was deficit neutral.  King said the CBO had a "secret" report.  The host said, "If you have such a report, produce it".

Then Steve King went on a rant that Republicans won because American prefer their policies.  So I guess if Americans want lies and voodoo, then he is probably correct.  

Me?  I don't like liars.  It's why I don't like the Republican leadership.  Too much dishonestly.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

I saw that.  Lawrence O'Donnell destroyed him with facts, and all he could do was sit there with a fake, frozen smile.  Another 30 seconds and the sweat would have started to bead up on his forehead.


----------



## asterism (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



First, nobody is getting a tax cut.  The options right now are to raise taxes on everyone, some, or none.  Secondly, the tax increase on the amount over 250K is more than the savings on your so-called "tax cut."


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



False.  It's a continuation of the Bush Tax *Cuts*.  What part of '*cut*' do you need help with?

*Bonus info:*  the only reason these tax *cuts* are expiring at all is because Republicans used *Reconciliation* to pass it in the first place, and the law states that it must expire when you use such maneuvers.  The same Reconciliation that they attacked last year when the Democrats wanted to use it:
*Rep. Paul Ryan slams reconciliation, Slaughter Solution, backroom sleaze behind HCR*


*GOP threatens Dems: If you try reconciliation, we&#8217;ll go nuclear with amendments*


*Reid to Republicans: "Stop crying over reconciliation" *​


> Secondly, the tax increase on the amount over 250K is more than the savings on your so-called "tax cut."



So what?


----------



## McDowell's (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



...Changing tactics mid-thread? That was my first post in this thread.


----------



## asterism (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



It's a proposal for a tax increase either way.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



The Bush tax legislation raises the taxes in 2011.  The tax increase is already in place legislatively.  Only a tax cut can change that.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



Uh, no.  These tax cuts were not intended to be permanent.  So any extension to 2011 and beyond would be a tax cut from what is already scheduled.


----------



## Article 15 (Dec 3, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



No, it's a proposal for a tax cut on income earned up to 250k.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 3, 2010)

McDowell's said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...


So you are iin favor of letting all the tax cuts expire?


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


thats not what he said
but the guys on YOUR team(AKA democrats) have been saying that tax cuts are bad


----------



## mudwhistle (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> McDowell's said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Part of them will expire if this is allowed. Problem is your boss will be the one getting nailed so guess what happens to your job bud?


----------



## Cuyo (Dec 3, 2010)

DiveCon said:


> Article 15 said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



OMG You're NOT serious!!!


----------



## Trajan (Dec 3, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Yeah, it's a bad link on Speaker Pelosi's website:


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 3, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it's a bad link on Speaker Pelosi's website:



As clarified above, it's not a bad link, that's the correct roll call vote.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 3, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



whooshing sound GB...


----------



## Yurt (Dec 3, 2010)

Article 15 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Article 15 said:
> ...



this is of the dumbest post i've seen on this board....

according to A15...if you get a tax cut for the money you make that is 250K or less.....but -->  if your taxes go UP on any monies made after that....you still get a tax cut.

so, in his world, you can get a tax cut on a portion, and raise in the other portion, which likely is MORE than the cut....and that is still a tax "cut"


----------



## Trajan (Dec 3, 2010)

NYcarbineer said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



oh, like the AMT? please, you are stretching semantics to the point of no return.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Dec 3, 2010)

Trajan said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



You're in denial to the point of no return.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

not at all, your point is  vaporous, what has not happened is not reality,  they change what they like when they have the will to ( and the numbers) , I gave you an example.  

They legislated out AMT 3 times, in direct contradiction of their very own PayGo to boot. IF the cuts expire taxs go UP, if they don't they stay the same, in either event the gov. is no worse off than they are right now, but the taxpayer will be. They can simply legislate an extension or set them in stone.


----------



## racewright (Dec 4, 2010)

We cut 40 people from our employ in 2010-- reason is we are in the construction industry and commercial construction prices are in the toilet mainly because construction is down.  So major down sizing and increased bid prices is a reality for our company..
 We also moved from a six office building with a 6000 sq ft warehouse to a 3 office building with a 4000 sq ft warehouse.  
These moves saves about 2,000,000.00 in labor costs and 400,000 in overhead.  About half of that we probably should have cut before the economy took a turn for the worst, but ya kind of hate to let people go and down size for a host of reasons so when forced to ya do.  
What most of you do not realize is employers down size and then realize they could have been operating leaner than they were so when business picks up (it always does) they learned that many jobs were not reaLy needed. Might have something to do with unemployment #'s
 We will pay less to the Unions, goverment,social security,insurance companies,distributors,and a host of other agencies--and they want more.  It is very plain to see that the leaders in this country have no idea (worker bee's also) what it takes to have prosperity for all.
Our company can wait several years till the economy becomes good again  CAN YOU.
 Moral,,Homes paid for,boats paid for ,cars paid for,motor homes paid for, summer homes paid for.
Just have to pay personal taxes as they come due and the company will do that easy enough,but new hires will be last if at all.


----------



## Samson (Dec 4, 2010)

liebuster said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...



But Pelosi says The Rich don't help small businesses and jobs:



> Congressional Republicans have been holding the middle class tax cuts hostage, insisting on a permanent extension of the Bush tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires _*which economists say do little to create jobs in America (and the Bush record of shrinking private sector jobs is proof)*_. Their calls for a permanent extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest would saddle our children with more than $700 billion in debtor $2,000 per American householdnearly 80% of which would be used to provide millionaires and billionaires with an average bonus tax cut of $100,000 a year.


----------



## editec (Dec 4, 2010)

The Republicans are holding out for a compromise.

If the Dems want to give tax breaks on incomes less than $250K, the only way they'll get the Reps to go along is if they ALSO extend the tx cuts for billionaires.

Personally, I think the RNC and DNC are in this sham together.

They* both know* that if the tax system were truly progressive, we'd have fifty tax backets instead of just three.

*You partisans on both sides are being duped.*


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> liebuster said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



That should tell you just how fucked up it is. It on Pelosi's website and redirectes you to something else. Which if you think about it that's how the democrats do thing anyway.


----------



## code1211 (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!
> 
> 
> http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2010/roll604.xml




I suppose a half a truth is better than none.

The way the Dems packaged the Sun setting of this package of Cuts was that this was not a tax hike; it was simply a return to the rates that were in force.

I suppose that they thought that if they put that crap into a brown bag and said that it wasn not crap in a brown bag but was only a brown bag and was exactly like something that everyone like, everyone would like it.

Crap still smells like crap.  How stupid do they think we are?

If I'm paying 20% now and they want me to pay 23% next year, that's a tax hike.  If they want to raise the taxes on some but not on others, that favoritism.  If they want to give half the people in the country a pass to pay nothing, that's favoritism.


----------



## Greenbeard (Dec 4, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> That should tell you just how fucked up it is. It on Pelosi's website and redirectes you to something else.



No, it doesn't.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

editec said:


> The Republicans are holding out for a compromise.
> 
> If the Dems want to give tax breaks on incomes less than $250K, the only way they'll get the Reps to go along is if they ALSO extend the tx cuts for billionaires.
> 
> ...



I know how you feel brother.

This country is truely fucked up.

The sad thing is the dems are still are only hope


----------



## editec (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The Republicans are holding out for a compromise.
> ...


 
You really think that the DEMS are going to radically change the way society works?

Okay, let me ask you this, then.

What POTUS signed the bill which allowed DEREIVATIVES (which are the major reason we're in a depression) to exist SANS regulations?

Here's a hint...

His initials were William Jefferson Clinton.

So if we were going to assign BLAME to one person (now that wouldn't be sensible, but it is done so often, so let's play that game, shall we?) then the ONE PERSON most responsible for the current economic meltdown is what?

He's a fucking DEMOCRAT.

Now if your point is that the Dems tend to treat the working classes more kindly while they're in the back room cutting deals that are putting us on WELFARE, I wouldn't disagree with that,

But my point is, when it comes to the policies and laws that REALLY MATTER to the economy, there isn't a DIMES worht of difference between the parties.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

editec said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...






Would clinton have written that bill or signed it if we did not have a republican controled congress at the time?


I agree with you I really do, Its looking like Obama and some of the congress are bought too.

They likely are.

The sad sad thing is the dems still have more to offer than the right wing in this country.

The republicans are a wholy owned subsiderary of the corporate owners.

The dems at least have to throw us tid bits.

Its Fucked I wont deny it.

But Im not going to just give up OR join the criminal side.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



It never matters when I log in. You are always engaged in a straw argument.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

Toby hush now the grown ups are talking


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> Toby hush now the grown ups are talking



In that case you are disqualified.

You make a great liar though, a dem through and through.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

editec said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




Exactly


> when it comes to the policies and laws that REALLY MATTER to the economy, there isn't a DIMES worht of difference between the parties


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Greenbeard said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > That should tell you just how fucked up it is. It on Pelosi's website and redirectes you to something else.
> ...



Only someone who is to incompetent to see wouldn't understand it. Liberals are that way.

And damn it if your going to quote what I post quote the whiole fucking post. and then quote what you are responding to.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

There is a dimes worth of differance.

Your guys want to have us completely OWNED by the corprations.

The dems atr least have to throw the people tid bits.

Tid bits are better than slave shackles.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> There is a dimes worth of differance.
> 
> Your guys want to have us completely OWNED by the corprations.
> 
> ...



Well if thats true doing it their way is by choice, doing it your way and the liberal way there is no choice in the matter. Corprate CEO's believe in the bottom line of cost and what they will lose if we do not buy their product. Government tells you what products to buy.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

mudwhistle said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > McDowell's said:
> ...


Not a thing.  Why should his personal income tax have anything to do with his business plan?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, it's a bad link on Speaker Pelosi's website:


Turns out it wasn't.  It was attached to the bill in the link.

Were you ready to slam Speaker Pelosi for her webmaster skillz?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...


Jeez - another one who doesn't know how to read a thread.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > liebuster said:
> ...



Comment reposted by popular demand.


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

Economist's View: The New Laffer Curve Logic and the Lack of Evidence for It


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

code1211 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > That's right - 168 Republicans voted to raise your taxes!
> ...




Then you should be complaining to a wingnut, not me.  They are the ones complaining that Democrats are trying to raise taxes rather than letting a tax cut expire, as it was meant to do.

I'm just using their fucked up rhetoric against them.

And it isn't close to half the country.  It's 98% of the country vs. the richest 2%.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



no. you may select another option.

 please come again sir.


----------



## editec (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

editec said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Talk about half-truths!

This goes back to Reagan's last days in office, and Wendy Gramm, wife of Phil.  It continued with Clinton signing the *Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000*, authored by Phil Gramm, and broght to Clinton on December 21, 2000, 4 days before Christmas, and in the midst of Monicagate.  Now, how many times do you see Congress doing anything that close to Christmas?

Read up:  Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...


Clinton could not have written the bill because only Congress writes bills.  This one was written by Phil Gramm and other far-Right Regressives.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


I guess you were making a joke.  Sorry that I didn't get it.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

yes tis true, Armey et al primarily wrote it and clinton signed it. (Glass-Steagall)


----------



## Truthmatters (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



It actually ws writtne by the lobbiest and Gramm left congress soon after for a cushy job at UBS bank


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



no problem, the joke is simply I think that directing someone to the House speakers sit e strikes me as funny, if I directed someone to Boehners site I'd expect some laughter.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



obamacare 2009


----------



## asterism (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The current tax rate was never devised as a temporary policy, it just wasn't feasible to pass it without reconciliation.  You also might like to reconsider your 98% vs. 2% generalization since every single one of my employees and vendors want the current tax rates to stay in effect at all income levels.  They know they won't benefit if I have less money to risk on keeping them employed.


----------



## asterism (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Oh, just last year when the Senate passed the PPACA

Health Care Bill - H.R.3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...


I would think that you would approve - it bypasses the media.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


What are you attempting to say?  Hint:  try a complete sentence.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Feasible?  You mean 'possible'.  President Cheney had to come in and cast the deciding vote.  It was extremely unpopular.

Do you pump in Rush and Sean all day long at your worksite?  I certainly don't doubt that there are many people in this country who vote against their interests and the country's interests.  There was a bestseller written about it:


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...





> Now, how many times do you see Congress doing anything that close to Christmas?



Do you have a short term memory problem dumbass? obamacare 2009 was the last time congress worked up to the holidays and up until the late hours of the night.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 4, 2010)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...


They may have.  I asked how many times you see it. With a huge civil rights bill like HCR you expect that.  With a bill to give millionaires a bonus tax cut, not so much.

It clearly defines the priorities of each party, too.  Thanks!


----------



## Revere (Dec 4, 2010)

Health care is not a civill right if it compels someone else to pay for it.


----------



## Samson (Dec 4, 2010)

Senate bid to renew tax cuts fails - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com



> Senate Republicans derailed legislation Saturday to extend expiring tax cuts at all but the highest income levels in a political showdown that paradoxically clears a path for a compromise with the White House on steps to boost the economy......*Obama has signaled that he will bow to Republican demands for extending tax cuts at all income levels*


----------



## Trajan (Dec 4, 2010)

Samson said:


> Senate bid to renew tax cuts fails - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com
> 
> 
> 
> > Senate Republicans derailed legislation Saturday to extend expiring tax cuts at all but the highest income levels in a political showdown that paradoxically clears a path for a compromise with the White House on steps to boost the economy......*Obama has signaled that he will bow to Republican demands for extending tax cuts at all income levels*



thx samson...I pulled the pic from the link, notice the infantile poster board.....this is what they are reduced to.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 4, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yes it does define the priorities, bankrupting American and forced servtitude to the government is the government way.


----------



## Samson (Dec 4, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Senate bid to renew tax cuts fails - Politics - Capitol Hill - msnbc.com
> ...



Dems will go along with maintaining the status quo on taxes, as long as repubs will spend more money extending welfare for _MORE THAN THE MAX 99 WEEKS!!_



> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he hoped for an agreement by the middle or end of next week on legislation that would combine an extension of tax cuts with a renewal of expiring jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.



Harry, Are you fucking kidding me?

If you've been such a loser as to be unemployed for 99 weeks, then I have news for you, Harry: Another week, another 6 weeks, another 52 weeks, or another 52 years, probably isn't going to help.


----------



## asterism (Dec 5, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Oh look, another "they are too stupid to make their own decisions" perspective.  I don't "pump" anything into my office.  I've never even heard talk radio in the office.  My people know that when we do well they do well.  When we take a hit they take a hit.


----------



## asterism (Dec 5, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



In a roundabout way, you're correct.  More government control vs. less government control.  Higher taxes vs. lower taxes.  Yup, the Dems sure have shown their priorities.  If only the Republicans could actually govern the way they posture.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

Samson said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Where did you guys come up with they want to extend it beyond 99 weeks.

The argument is so bogus its laughable.

Pay attention, the extension if it goes through does not extend the benefits beyond 99 weeks. It allows others that have been laid off an opportunity to the same benefits that pthers before them recieved, if the economy improves the cut offs are already in place.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 5, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Oh, you run a commune!  Sounds communist.


----------



## asterism (Dec 5, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No, we just choose to sink or swim together.  No government force needed.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 5, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Did you support the more government control regarding wiretapping?  What about the government power that was bestowed by Bush on the TSA?  How about the creation of the largest Federal bureaucracy in history, Homeland Security?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 5, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


Do you split all profits equally?  Or do they just share in the downturns?


----------



## Samson (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I'd appreciate confirmation of this: You're source?

My source, which I quoted, said:



> Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he hoped for an agreement by the middle or end of next week on legislation that would combine an extension of tax cuts with _*a renewal of expiring jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed*_.



Currently the jobless benefits for the long term unemployed are 99 weeks

Then they expire.

Renewing them would allow them to last longer than 99 weeks.

However, I conceed that the quote could mean "renewing the 99 week jobless benefits."

The MSNBC aritcle isn't terribly clear on this point.


----------



## asterism (Dec 5, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



Yes, no, and oh hell no.

I don't consider the wiretapping to be government control.  Nice strawman.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

Samson said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Go to any states EUC section.  EUC is only for 53 weeks, the EB is for just 20 weeks if they qualify. The previous 26 was provided by the state.  If someone who was laid off 7 months ago, as of nov 27th they would only be entiltled to an additional 16 weeks, then they are cut off. The extension being discussed is whether this individual will qualify for the additional compensation up to the 53 weeks EUC provides. He would be eligible for an additional 49 weeks.  Those that have exhausted thier benefits have exhausted thier benefits, there will be no addtional funds.


----------



## asterism (Dec 5, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



No we don't split profits equally.  However, they never showed up to work and had to bring some of their savings with them just to keep the doors open.  I did.  Their bonuses are small during bad times and big during good times.  Their base compensation is based on the value they bring to the company which is still above comparable jobs in this area.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



mu understanding is however that dems are now in this proposed  bill paying for  more money to provide to the states TO provide benes to even the  99ers....I could be wrong but thats how I understand it...typical DC speak who the heck really knows, have they spelled it ? probably not if it doesn't fit the muzak, reps evil dems a chicken in every pot.


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

Trajan said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



My god, I hope you are wrong.   My understanding is its just an extension of exsisting rules. Which has its phase out clauses.  If the government can make thier buddies rich, then  300 a week to people that need it should not be questioned. The government had a great deal to do with this decline, dumping on the people while congreess continues its biillion a year on congressional perks is not acceptable to me.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > Full-Auto said:
> ...



me too, but we'll see. it would be nice if we  could find a clearly detailed explanation.....


----------



## Trajan (Dec 5, 2010)

ths is out the latest article I could find, I am pretty sure this is what nancy andharry is up to...

Congress Ponders Extending Unemployment Benefits Beyond 99 Weeks
By Michael Cohn
July 30, 2010

Lawmakers are mulling the possibility of adding an extra tier of unemployment benefits beyond the four tiers currently available for those who have been out of work for over 99 weeks.

However, the hard-fought battle over extending unemployment benefits that played out earlier this month is leaving some lawmakers exhausted.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., recently told an Elmira, N.Y., TV news outlet, WENY-TV, that Congress was working on a bill that would help those who have exhausted the 99 weeks of benefits during the economic downturn, adding a possible Tier 5 of benefits.

Congress Ponders Extending Unemployment Benefits Beyond 99 Weeks



at what point does this end?


----------



## Full-Auto (Dec 5, 2010)

Trajan said:


> ths is out the latest article I could find, I am pretty sure this is what nancy andharry is up to...
> 
> Congress Ponders Extending Unemployment Benefits Beyond 99 Weeks
> By Michael Cohn
> ...



Thankyou very much for the information. I hadnt been aware of this latest development.

Things would improve if congress would put the budget out there.  Make a decision on cuts etc.   I dont think it will fly though. I believe this to be nothing other then posturing. 

At some point everyone in the country will take a hit. Its just a question at what speed do we crash.


----------



## Trajan (Dec 5, 2010)

Full-Auto said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > ths is out the latest article I could find, I am pretty sure this is what nancy andharry is up to...
> ...



well the problem is they have been adding $$ to fed. agencies like no tomorrow, aside from stimulus etc. I am speaking to discretionary spending too, they didn't do a budget back in jan 2010  for next year, 2011, because they could not afford to fight that battle to, they had the obama care war going on, and they knew, if they floated the budget for 2011 that is basically in effect due to ongoing spending bills to just keep the gov. running, there would have been a revolt.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 5, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


Ok, that's cool, and you seem like an owner who gets it.  There are too many who want to lay off people, then want the rest of the workforce to take on those jobs.  Others who call for sacrifice, yet in good times hire more people and cut everyone's hours in order to have part-time help, and the financial advantages that reaps.

And I do believe that wiretapping = more government control.  It has a chilling effect.  I have a relative overseas, non-military, and I do not feel comfortable talking politics with him any longer, through email or phone convo.  How do I discuss U.S. foreign policy without discussing al Qaeda, etc.


----------



## The T (Dec 5, 2010)

Trajan said:


> ths is out the latest article I could find, I am pretty sure this is what nancy andharry is up to...
> 
> Congress Ponders Extending Unemployment Benefits Beyond 99 Weeks
> By Michael Cohn
> ...


 
In a Socialist Utopia? _never._


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 6, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



The return on the asset portfolio managed by my wealth manager has averaged 11% per year for the last 15 years.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 6, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



Bullshit. 

Below is the 5 highest yielding municipal bond funds in 2010

Mutual Fund SEC Yield 

Lord Abbett High Yield Municipal Bond A 7.45% 
Oppenheimer AMT-Free Municipals A 6.68% 
Nuveen High Yield Municipal A 6.62% 
Pioneer High Income Municipal A 6.58% 
Waddell & Reed Municipal High Income A 5.90% 

Top 5 Highest Yielding Municipal Bond Funds - Zacks.com

In order for you to make millions each year just on munies you would have to have ten of millions in bonds. 

To prove me wrong list the munies you hold.


----------



## asterism (Dec 6, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



If you want to lump "chilling effect" in, then I'll agree with that premise.  But then we have to talk about the chilling effect on small businesses during this so-called recovery and then the chilling effect on corporate investments in the wake of the government's actions regarding GM.


----------



## asterism (Dec 6, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



Why aren't you paying your fair share of taxes?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 6, 2010)

asterism said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Last year, the Republicans wanted to be able to deduct 50% of the cost of new equipment, as opposed to the 30-something that Democrats wanted.  Last month, President Obama offered to make it 100%, and couldn't get one Republican on board.  What does that say about Republicans?

Obama has been extremely pro-business.  The record is clear.


From FOXNEWS.com:*Obama to Propose Massive Tax Breaks for Businesses to Invest in Growth*
 

       Published September 06, 2010
 | The Wall Street Journal






                 AP
                 Monday: President Obama gestures as he speaks on the economy at the Milwaukee Laborfest in Milwaukee. 




                                President Obama, in one of his most  dramatic gestures to business, will propose that companies be allowed to  write off 100 percent of their new investment in plant and equipment  through 2011, a plan that White House economists say would cut business taxes by nearly $200 billion over two years.


The proposal, to be laid out Wednesday in a  speech in Cleveland, tops a raft of announcements, from a proposed  expansion of the research and experimentation tax credit to $50 billion  in additional spending on roads, railways and runways. But unlike those  two ideas, both familiar from Obama's 2008 campaign, the investment  incentive would embrace a long-held wish by conservative economists that  had never won support from either Republican or Democratic  administrations.


"Temporary investment incentives like this  can have big effects because they really pull investment forward," R.  Glenn Hubbard, dean of the Columbia University School of Business and a  former chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President  George W. Bush. "This could have a big stimulative effect."


*But the response Monday from business  lobbyists hinted at uncertain political prospects for the idea: Many  said a higher priority for their members remains extension of the Bush  income-tax rates for higher earners that are set to expire at the end of  2010*. Obama and many congressional Democrats want to let those breaks  expire.




Read more: Obama to Propose Massive Tax Breaks for Businesses to Invest in Growth - FoxNews.com​​Any complaints from the fringe-Right about Obama being anti-business is just outright lies and distortions.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 7, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


 The portfolio in question is not all invested in tax exempt municipal bonds, dude.   In fact, municipal bonds are only 10% of the total portfolio.



> In order for you to make millions each year just on munies you would have to have ten of millions in bonds.


 I have accumulated enormous wealth.  I could lose tens of millions and still have more wealth than one person should be allowed to have. 



> To prove me wrong list the munies you hold.


 LOL


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 7, 2010)

asterism said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Because the Republicans believe that the solution to every problem is to cut my income taxes.


----------



## Micky G. Jagger (Dec 7, 2010)

The U. S. is a great nation because it is a socialist utopia, a society with a rational social safety net.


----------



## asterism (Dec 8, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



Ok, so you think we should pay more and you think the federal government is a worthwhile cause to support beyond your current level but you won't do it voluntarily why?


----------



## asterism (Dec 8, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> The U. S. is a great nation because it is a socialist utopia, a society with a rational social safety net.



Perhaps.

However the current tax policy is unsustainable, the current spending levels are unsustainable, and the current system for balancing the two are fatally flawed.  The well-intentioned and completely Constitutional (in my opinion) safety net is built on a very shaky foundation and the bigger it gets relative to GDP and typical benefits offered to typical people is cracking that already shaky foundation even more.

I think the U.S. is a great nation because it for the most part balances freedom with security and has a pretty good way to mitigate the competing interests.  Right now we just spend too much and fund the government wrong.  Again, just my opinion.  Still the best place on the planet though.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Dec 8, 2010)

Micky G. Jagger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



You have just shown yourself to be a liar. 

You stated " PS: *I earn millions each year from municipal bonds*, none of which is even subject to the federal income tax."

Living in your parents basement, recieving unemployment insurance and pretending to be a multi-millionaire is closer to the truth. Isn't it?

If you care to list the items in your alleged portfolio then you may have a chance at redemption.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 8, 2010)

asterism said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > The U. S. is a great nation because it is a socialist utopia, a society with a rational social safety net.
> ...



I assume you mean because you believe it's too high.  Was tax policy sustainable when the top rate was 90%, under Republican Eisenhower?  How about under Nixon?  How about under every single president?


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 8, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...


How has he showed himself to be a liar?


----------



## Meister (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



The distortions is with the "Massive Tax Breaks".  Read the details of these tax breaks then get back to me.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 8, 2010)

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


That's from FOXNEWS and The Wall Street Journal.  Are you saying that they are distorting in order to make the President look better?


----------



## asterism (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Micky G. Jagger said:
> ...



Not necessarily as a structural flaw.  I do think the tax rate is too high, but the rate isn't the reason it's unsustainable.  It's unsustainable because it's a hybrid of revenue generation for the government and social engineering.  It can't go on being a little of both, it has to be primarily one or the other to survive in my opinion.



Synthaholic said:


> Was tax policy sustainable when the top rate was 90%, under Republican Eisenhower?



Yes because that 90% was on taxable income only and there were all sorts of ways to shield income if one was building wealth especially for the moderately affluent.  Those options don't exist anymore and one of the significant measures used to correct the loopholes was the Alternative Minimum Tax.  That was a workable solution to the problem, but now it targets upper middle class almost exclusively.  Once a solution to a problem of the super rich dealing unfairly, now it's a barrier to anyone but the super rich to even get into a decent financial situation to open a McDonald's franchise.



Synthaholic said:


> How about under Nixon?  How about under every single president?



Same for them also, but the creeping AMT problem combined with the tax code changes that have allowed people to avoid it if they are rich enough while also trapping more and more middle class people is a gradual problem that's nobody's fault specifically while it's every President's fault for not doing anything about it.

However, that in itself does not make the current method of funding the government unsustainable.  The process by which the government controls behavior to the detriment of the very people it relies on to fund it is the problem.  The super rich are never going to acquiesce to paying more of their current money to the government, the only thing they might do is pay a greater portion of their future income.  But they will demand that everyone lower on the economic scale pay also, and right now that currency is opportunity.

They figured this one out, which is why there is such an emphasis by them to set some new rules about what up and comers like me have to do.  The problem in the first place was a group of people not in control decided to get control and incrementally have done so.  It's not a conspiracy, it's a perspective and an ideological power struggle.


----------



## asterism (Dec 8, 2010)

asterism said:


> Micky G. Jagger said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


----------



## Spoonman (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Airport and Airway Extension Act of 2010, Part III ?
> ...



Uhm, they voted to extend the tax cuts.


----------



## Synthaholic (Dec 8, 2010)

Spoonman said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...


I see that you are chronologically impaired.


----------



## Meister (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



I'm saying that the businesses need to jump through hoops to get their tax breaks.  Plant equipment investments? WTF?  Like all small businesses need plant equipment.


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...


no, you are the impared one, they voted in a way to get ALL of the tax cuts continued
they SHOULD be made permanent


----------



## Meister (Dec 8, 2010)

How long do tax cuts have to be around before it just becomes a tax increase when raised?

I really don't hear about Kennedy's tax cuts.


----------



## asterism (Dec 8, 2010)

Meister said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > Meister said:
> ...



Nobody has been able to present hard numbers on how much money businesses saved in the stimulus tax breaks, much less present a company that actually received any of them to the extent that it was an actual tax break.  It's like the AMT combined with Bush's tax cuts.  The nominal rate was cut, but AMT increased by a larger amount so I actually got a tax hike in 2003.


----------



## Samson (Dec 8, 2010)

Synthaholic said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



All of us are.


----------

