Republicans against small business
Senate Republicans unanimously blocked a bill to aid small businesses with expanded loan programs and tax breaks. The bill was written with the help of several Republican Senators, and it was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
Join us on Facebook.
Follow us on Twitter.
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:24 pm
Gee, the majority leader, Harry Reid,voted no, so he must be against small business also!
August 3rd, 2010 at 1:29 pm
As if you didn’t already know, it said in the article that Sen. Reid “switched his vote to no at the last minute, a parliamentary step that allows him to call for a re-vote.”
Senator LeMieux (R-FL) helped draft the bill. “This small-business bill should pass, and it should pass with relevant amendments. Before I am a Republican, I am a Floridian and an American, and this bill is good for our country,” he said before voting against it. The “relevent amendments,” he was referring to included “the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security, the expiring Bush tax cuts,” and the kitchen sink.
Acting like “spoiled children,” the Party of No would filibuster a resolution honoring Mom and apple pie if it were proposed by President Obama.
August 4th, 2010 at 7:57 am
And they should continue saying NO, NO NO to Obama’s Marxism. He can shove his Communism where the sun doesn’t shine. Anyone with any semblance of intelligence will learn from the past that it does not work. Whilst Obama wants to allow the illegals to stay here for a better life, he is trying to push us down the same road that created the hardships they are trying to escape. Are you that dumb?
August 4th, 2010 at 8:53 am
Molly: Thank you for your insulting and inciteful (certainly not insightful) comment.
Please explain how loans and tax cuts for small businesses are “Communism.”
Has the U.S. Chamber of Commerce been taken over by “Marxists?”
August 4th, 2010 at 8:56 am
Now wait, David Campbell! You’re qualifying a no vote? No mean no and goes down in the record as no. You are quick to defend the majority leaders no, yet you fail to give the reason why the opposition voted no. Could it be that the bill was poor in that it didn’t contain the proper amendments to make it meaningful legislation? Should one be satisfied with “half a loaf”, rather than be labeled an obstructionist? David Campbell you can’t have it both ways. Hence, by your standards, since Reid voted no, he is “Against small business”.
August 4th, 2010 at 9:17 am
Senate Republicans have been demanding for weeks that the Senate urgently act on the bill, only to delay and obstruct it when it came up for a vote. If even one Republican had voted for it, it would be law by now.
Republicans like Sen. LeMieux who helped draft the bill had every opportunity to “make it meaningful legislation.” Which of the following would you consider “proper amendments” — the estate tax, nuclear loan guarantees, border security, or expiring Bush tax cuts?
Sen. Reid’s procedural tactic kept the bill alive so that it could be brought to another vote later. We will all have to wait a little longer to see if any Senate Republicans vote for it next time (if there is a next time). Molly says they should always vote no.
August 4th, 2010 at 3:50 pm
Oh, I see David. Reid’s no is a tactic. a Republican no is against small business, not a tactic. David, candidly isn’t this ineffectual Congress all about tactics?
August 4th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
Greetings from Tennessee.
In Defense of Barack Obama:
I am a truck driver, and while I describe myself as a moderate I am must face my fellow truck drivers who are often quite conservative. They often accuse me of being a bleeding heart liberal. In the face of these conservative extremists I often end up defending Barack Obama.
Now let me explain that Barack was not my first or even second choice. I did end voting for him, but he was far from my first choice in the primaries. But he has surprised me. I will not say he met my hopes, but my fears were unfounded. He’s turning out to be pretty decent in my opinion. Looking at the challenges he faces, how can anyone blame him for not being Jesus? When Jesus comes back, we’ll have perfection, and in the mean time, we have to settle for only human Barack Obama. Well Barack the human being isn’t doing too bad.
I know I am going to heaven and I pity those of you who follow the servants of satan (Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck) who might be going to hell. God is merciful, and if you are only ignorant, I am sure mercy will be extended to you. But if you are intelligent enough to know better like Rush and Glenn should? God is merciful but if you mortgage your soul to satan, God is going to foreclose when the debt is due.
But there is hope. Jesus said it is harder for a rich man to get into heaven then for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle. On NPR today I heard that through the leadership of the wizard of Wall Street, Warren Buffet, a large number of the wealthiest Americans have agreed to donate 50% of their wealth to philanthropy. Warren led by example by donating 99% of his wealth. Well I do not know if Warren praises God, but I am sure God would praise Warren.
August 5th, 2010 at 3:58 am
Innocent by-stander: You almost have it, but not quite. They were both tactics. Republicans submitting multiple unrelated amendments and their unanimous filibuster were tactics to delay or kill a bill that would have supported small businesses and stimulate the economy. Sen. Reid’s procedural vote was a tactic to keep the bill alive.
An “ineffectual Congress” is the Republican goal. Republicans obstruct everything and then blame Democrats for not getting anything done.
August 5th, 2010 at 10:19 am
“When Jesus comes back, we’ll have perfection, and in the mean time, we have to settle for only human Barack Obama.” Can you prove that Obama isn’t a divine messenger from whatever “God” he believes in? We’ve seen everything now… the extreme “Left Wing” has “Extreme Right Wing” of religious evangelicals who have added a chapter of “Hope and Change” to their personal Bibles….
August 5th, 2010 at 2:30 pm
David, I do not recall mentioning the US Chamber of Commerce.
Why are the Dems so concerned about the Republicans voting with them when they have a clear majority and do not need them? shouldn’t the question be why did their fellow Dems vote against them?
Is anyone in politics these days to actually help the people they purport to represent? Isn’t it amazing how they all become multimillionaires in just a few years earning, what is it, $170k annually?
Everything Obama has done since taking office is to systematically take over the finances of this country, to deliberately cripple the economy, leaving it wide open for his complete takeover as a dictator. Amnesty to illegals will provide more voters for him with their Government dependence. Strange how Chavez and all the other lefty dictators think he is so great. We will be lucky to ever have another election the way he is going. He has zero interest in what the people of this country want, only shoving his communist ideology down our throats. I thought he was a slimy toad from the minute I set eyes on him and have not changed my opinion, yet I watch as he constantly lies with that smarmy, smug smirk on his face. Evil man. And don’t get me onto that nasty wife of his, vacationing in luxury in Spain at our expense whilst we are all struggling to make ends meet.
Little David, Why are you so eager to give up your freedom and have big Government tell you what to do in every aspect of your life? Do you really want to work hard to better yourself just so that the government can steal your earnings and give it to someone who they consider “more deserving.” I am a naturalized citizen from Europe, and most of us came here to escape Socialism and Communism and live the American Dream. Where has it gone? What happens when you run out of other peoples’ money? The Greek tragedy. And they are still rioting in the streets demanding what they are “owed”. People will do what you pay them to do, so if you pay them to sit on their rear ends, that is exactly what they will do. It has been going on for years in Europe, and look at the mess they are in. Do you really want this great Republic to go down that road? Please, wake up people.
August 5th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Greetings from Texas.
@Molly
I guess I do have some Socialist leanings because I am in favor of socialized medicine, although if I had my way it would offer only limited coverage. I think this would be the only real solution to America’s health care system problems. I also love Social (as in socialism) Security. Now I understand the problem with a purely socialized society. Hard work should pay off as it should. Financial success should not be a crime and tax rates, even on the wealthiest. should not be confiscatory. However I also love the American Way which I believe is adherence to a progressive tax system and even Ronald Reagan said their should be a safety net for the less fortunate. You talk about coming here to live the American Dream, however for too many of our citizens attempting at achieve the Dream has become a nightmare. As the middle class slowly disappears those citizens forced into poverty are going to be resentful and take out their anger at the voting booth. Do you expect a laid off worker forced into the lines at the soup kitchens to applaud as the fellow that outsourced his job to China cruises by in a limousine? My guess is he’ll be more apt to throw rocks.
@Red Faction
You’re wrong to describe me as an evangelical as I do not even call myself a Christian. Why? First off I am unworthy, and second, while I love Jesus profoundly I am not certain he was God. While I am not Jewish, I call Jesus Rabbi. I believe most evangelicals would agree I do not qualify to describe myself as a Christian due to the latter point alone. They say Jesus is Lord and I only say Rabbi.
August 6th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Molly: The specific topic of this post (lest we forget) is the small business bill. My original post mentioned the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in favor of the small business bill that you described as “Marxist.” I am still not clear how loans and tax cuts for small businesses are “Communist.”
It is true that Democrats “have a clear majority,” but under current Senate rules the minority can obstruct everything (as they have). Many bills have easily passed the House by large majorities and have majority support in the Senate, only to be blocked by Senate Republicans (including some fairly popular bills that Republicans helped write and claim to support — like this small business bill, for example). Our elected officials (of either party) should be held accountable for their votes.
Politicians don’t “become multimillionaires in just a few years earning, what is it, $170k annually.” There are 15 multimillionaires currently in Congress, but they were rich before they ever entered politics. Many (like Republican Congressional candidate and multimillionaire Scott Rigell, for example) finance their own campaigns and buy their own way into office. Campaign finance laws could fix the problem, but that depends on politicians voting against their own interests.
President Obama did not “cripple the economy.” You may recall that it was crippled well before he took office. The prompt actions of President Bush and President Obama are widely credited with preventing the economy from sliding into a deeper depression. The economy has actually improved under President Obama, but it has been painfully slow on job creation. There are limits on what any president can do to affect the economy, especially when hampered in their efforts to stimulate the economy by Senate filibusters (this small business bill, for example).
President Reagan, both President Bushs, and the last Republican presidential nominee Sen. McCain have all favored a path to citizenship for illegal aliens living in this country. Were they Socialists?
Unlike you, I am confident that we will continue to have elections in this country. As usual, the party of the President will lose some seats in the midterm Congressional election (and maybe more than usual, due to the slow pace of economic recovery that is largely beyond their control), but Democrats probably won’t lose the majority in either body. Two years later, President Obama will be up for re-election. He has been doing the things we elected him to do. If “the people” like what he has accomplished and want to continue moving forward with his agenda, he will be re-elected. If they prefer going back to Bush-era policies, the Republican candidate will be elected. You will be free to vote for Sarah Palin or Ron Paul or whoever else you think will lead the country better.
August 7th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
What I fail to understand is why Republicans are against a stimulus measure that might benefit the small business man while they are whole heartedly in favor of extending the Dubyah tax cuts for the wealthy. On one point they say the measure must be paid for before they vote for it, but on the second they say we can figure out how to pay for it later. Why are they only in favor of borrowing for the wealthy?
Common sense people. Paris Hilton is not going to have her Rolls Royce repossessed no matter if the tax cuts for the wealthy go through or not. She already has so much money she has trouble trying to figure out how to waste it wisely; no evidence of real wisdom other then knowing how to party. Now how about the small business man? I think investing in the small business man is money well spent. If America is going to dig its way out of the current economic problem, we need to give the shovel to the small business man. Give a shovel to Paris Hilton and she’ll have trouble figuring out which end of the shovel is up.
August 8th, 2010 at 1:11 pm
I never said the US Chamber of Commerce was Communist leaning-my comment was a general remark to the ideology of Obama.
Don’t expect me to defend Bush, as I was not a big fan of his either; definately not a conservative, though he did care very much about this country and was proud to be an American, unlike Obama who obviously is not, the way he travels the world apologizing for us, bowing to the Saudi King, offending our allies etc.
We are now so far from the Constitution and the plans of the Founding Fathers, I imagine they are turning in their graves. It appears that our vote no longer counts but will be overturned on the whim of lefty activist judges, e.g. Gay marriage in California last week. I could not care less if people are gay as long as they leave me alone, but marriage was intended for procreation and raising children with the stability of a mother and a father. If they wish for some form of official union, fine, but it is not marriage.
President Reagan did give amnesty to illegals as I recall, but I do not agree with it. I had to jump through hoops to come here, though I had been married to my husband for 10 years whilst he defended this country so that the likes of you can spout your mouth off. McCain is not a conservative either. They should all be sent back, the borders defended and then get in line with everyone else, and keep their gangs, murderers and rapists at the expense of the Mexican tax payers. They are costing us billions. Hospitals on the border states are no longer able to operate and are closing down due to illegals clogging emergency rooms. My husband rushed me to a hospital with a head injury only to be told to wait whilst an interpreter was found for the happy band of non English speaking folks who arrived just before us. Not one looked ill. I don’t remember because I lost 4 hours of memory that day.
The small business bill needed to fail. The original HR 5141 sponsored by Dan Lungren(R) was very small, but the Dems tagged it on to a much larger bill which was likely to increase taxes by $19.4bn over the next 10 years,on top of the enormous tax increases we will all endure from January 1st 2011. It also eliminated the Corporate tax breaks on those operating overseas, which would send more jobs off our shores. the GOP wanted to include beefing up border security, impose a Government spending cap, and lower estate tax, which returns Jan 1st at a rate of 55% for anything over $1M. They also wanted to repeal the tax reporting requirement for small businesses in the Health Care bill.
The Dems wanted to add $1.5bn disaster relief fund for farmers for 2009, settle long running law suits from black farmers and American Indians at a cost of $4.6bn.
I am dead against bail outs for any company, and the only reason we are in this mess is because of the housing loans(liar Loans) that the banks were forced to give to people with no hope of paying them back, introduced by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd who have the audacity to bad mouth the banks for doing exactly what they told them to do. Of course the banks are not blameless and jumped in with both feet. Jimmy Carter was the start of the idea that everyone deserves to own a home, but I am sorry if you are earning $8 per hour working at McDonalds it is not possible. everyone deserves the chance to a good education and to better themselves, but you are on your own after that. As for Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, both need to go.
Little David The top 1% of earners pay 40% of the total federal tax fund, the top 50 % pay 97%, and 50% of earners pay nothing. I think we should all pay the same rate, regardless of income. If we keep stealing more and more from the ultra rich, they will take their money elsewhere; they have the means to do so, which you and I don’t. If they have to cut back on their spending, they will not invest in new companies that will create jobs, neither will they buy that new yacht, car, use expensive hotels and restaurants etc. That will put out of work the boat builder, car maker, mechanic, hotel staff, restaurant staff etc, and unemployment will be even higher. People in the service industry also rely very much on their tips. Government jobs are just a burden on the rest of us, and produce nothing, except to make the “dinosaur” bigger and more cumbersome. If this country is not producing anything what are you going to transport?
Capitalism and the enterprise of the individual is what made this country great, not an interfering Government bleeding us all to death. Jobs will not be created until the cost of doing business is lowered and confidence restored to invest in new enterprise with new ideas and producing goods that people want to buy. If nobody wants to buy your product it is not the fault of the rest of us; You should have done your market research, and we should not have to bail you out.
Paris Hilton is just a spoilt little rich girl and to be ignored. It is her family that were enterprising and built the empire she will inherit. The Kennedy money came from Joe’s boot legging.
All corporations began as small businesses, and I agree they need help with loans available and even more so, tax breaks, but not in a bill that goes against the Government’s own PAYGO and increases spending a further $142bn. If you are heavily in debt and struggling to make ends meet, do you find ways to cut costs or spend even more? The biggest problem with our current situation is the ridiculous retirement and health care that has been negotiated for Government employees with no way to pay them, just like Greece. Time to cut them drastically.
I hope you get the chance to enjoy your retirement and receive your Social Security but we Baby Boomers seem to be out of luck as the funds have been spent by the last four presidents.
August 8th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
@Molly,
You went into many points but please excuse me for only having time to respond to a couple.
First off, if the wealthy have a problem with paying what I think is their fair share of taxes under what I am in favor of, they can always move out of the USA. Perhaps they can move over to China since that is where their wealth is coming from anyway. They can roll the dice over there. Perhaps they will be allowed to flaunt their wealth at the expense of the impoverished or perhaps they will end up on the gallows from the the next revolution.
If you want to live in America, you conform to the American Way and yes that means the wealthy pay more. Now, I will agree that things are getting out of whack. Under the American Way, the middle class is supposed to pay some too. Here the argument gets complicated. Perhaps the middle class does not pay their fair share in a progressive tax system as far as income tax is concerned, but what if every tax levied on citizens is considered? For example, fuel taxes are not progressive, the guy pulling up to the fuel pump with his limo pays the same as the fellow with his Yugo. The same goes for the sales taxes on a pair of jeans, everybody pays the same rate of sales taxes.
So your claim that the wealthy already pay all the taxes is laid bare for the lie that it is. I am sorry you fell for the lie. I am not surprised you fell for it because the liars have a very convincing argument to mislead you before those who know the truth start speaking up.
August 9th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Sorry David but my info is FACT from one of your favorite organizations the National Taxpayers Union (non partisan) providing statistics from the IRS. I guess they don’t know who pays what either? Here is a link:- http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html Read it for yourself.
Rich people WILL take their money elsewhere and then who will pay those waiting for the handouts? As I said before, what happens when you run out of other people’s money? Look at Greece, and those people rioting still haven’t the sense to see that there is no money and it is time to stand on your own two feet. Where is the money to come from? Why are people so incapable of taking care of themselves any more?
August 9th, 2010 at 11:57 am
Molly: The specific subject of this post is the small business bill, which would have provided loans and tax cuts for small business. (I thought you liked tax cuts?) It would not raise income tax rates or add to the deficit. It was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. How does this bill to support small businesses fit President Obama’s “Marxist” ideology?
Senate Republicans unanimously filibustered the small business bill. Republicans objected to a provision in the bill that would have provided farm and disaster relief, so Democrats stripped it. Then Republicans submitted multiple unrelated amendments to delay or kill the bill. Republicans ran out the clock, the Senate adjorned for their August recess, and small businesses will have to wait.
The law requiring hospitals to provide emergency treatment to all (including illegal aliens) was signed into law by President Reagan.
Apparently Reagan, Bush, and McCain aren’t conservative enough for you. Your vote still counts, but you are in such a small minority that you are unlikely to be able to elect anyone to suit your radical views.
The National Taxpayers Union is not “nonpartisan.” It is an anti-government anti-tax organization whose previous Executive Director was Grover Norquist. Their figures are for federal income taxes and exclude the regressive Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes and sales taxes.
If all the Bush income tax cuts expire in 2011, it will be because a) they were deliberately designed to expire by President Bush, to hide the devastating effect on the deficit and b) Senate Republicans obstruct President Obama’s plan to extend the middle class tax cuts to people like you and me.
The Bush tax cuts reduced the top marginal tax rates from 39.6% to 35%. President Obama would allow them to expire for individuals with taxable income in excess of $200,000 or married couples filing jointly with taxable income in excess of $250,000, restoring them to 39.6%. Apparently, that 4.6% difference is the difference between freedom and Socialism.
Top marginal tax rates would still be historically low (see chart below). For example, the top marginal rates were 76% under President Kennedy and 91% under President Eisenhower. Who is the real “Socialist”– President Obama or President Eisenhower?
August 10th, 2010 at 10:18 am
David- “It would not raise income tax rates or add to the deficit” Well, there is nothing like throwing out unsubstantiated rhetoric. Where is the money coming from?
” Your vote still counts, but you are in such a small minority that you are unlikely to be able to elect anyone to suit your radical views” Please explain what is radical about wanting illegal aliens removed from this country.
The only argument is for or against Socialism not whether Obama is one, most people in DC are. Anyone who takes from one person to give to another, “spreading the wealth” is a Socialist/Marxist.
Our national debt has increased by $1.3 trillion in the last 18 months, and with a population of 350m it should have given each individual $3714, but I received nothing. Where did the money go? No jobs were created. Please explain, because I think someone else got my share.
Eisenhower inherited huge debt from Truman, who had inherited it from Roosevelt’s “Great Society”, and kept the tax rates high to pay off the debt incurred. One good thing Roosevelt did was make people work for their welfare checks.
August 10th, 2010 at 10:46 am
It is true that the small business bill “would not raise income tax rates or add to the deficit.” It would have been fully funded by closing tax loopholes.
You said that Reagan, Bush, and McCain weren’t conservative enough for you. Who would be conservative enough for you? Is such a person electable by a majority of Americans? I don’t think so.
Americans broadly support progressive taxation. By your broad definition of Socialist/Marxist, most Americans are Socialist/Marxist.
You “received nothing” from the economic stimulus bill? Check again. 95% of working Americans received a tax cut.
August 10th, 2010 at 11:05 am
David
It would have been fully funded by closing tax loopholes.” What “loopholes”?
“You said that Reagan, Bush, and McCain weren’t conservative enough for you.” You said this not me. Just because a candidate is conservative, or claims to be does not mean I will follow like a sheep and agree with everything they do. Please answer my question.
The eventual tax rebate was $400 each whether the person owed tax or not. More spreading the wealth, but not $3714. I ask again, where is the money?
“Americans broadly support progressive taxation.” How do you know what 350 million people think? Where did this come from?
August 10th, 2010 at 11:49 am
The offsets used to fully fund the small busineess bill were listed in the link I provided previously.
It would be practically impossible to deport all 12 million illegal aliens currently living in this country. However, deportations have actually increased under President Obama and the House just passed a $600 million bill to boost security on the U.S.-Mexican border by hiring more enforcement officers and making greater use of unmanned surveillance drones.
President Reagan, President Bush, Republican Presidential nominee McCain, and a majority of Americans all favor a path to citizenship. You said you “do not agree” with Reagan’s “amnesty to illegals,” that Bush was “definitely not a conservative,” and that “McCain is not a conservative either.” Am I misquoting you? Please answer my question — who is a true conservative that you would support for President? Could such a person be elected by a majority of Americans?
About 30% of the economic stimulus package provided tax cuts of $400 for individuals and $800 for couples filing jointly. Many individual taxpayers benefited from additional tax breaks for dependent children, college education, first homes, new vehicles, alternative minimum tax offsets, and unemployment insurance benefits. (You say you “received nothing” — was that a true statement?) The rest went for aid to states, business tax incentives, and infrastructure projects.
Two-thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit. The public also favors moving forward with President Obama’s economic policies rather than going back to President Bush’s policies 46%-29%.
August 10th, 2010 at 3:44 pm
I am still waiting for some answers from my previous post, re illegal aliens, taxation, $3314.
We all know that the states were bailed out of their debt, unions paid off etc. Great stimulus, and the unemployment rate continues to rise.
I am poor, so when can I expect my check from you, as you are so keen to spread the wealth?
August 10th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
Molly: I already answered all of your questions in my previous comment. You received your tax cut from President Obama’s economic stimulus package, just like everybody else.
August 11th, 2010 at 2:50 am
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
The Outstanding Public Debt as of 11 Aug 2010 at 09:48:45 AM GMT is:
The estimated population of the United States is 308,906,310
so each citizen’s share of this debt is $43,111.42.
August 11th, 2010 at 3:57 am
President Bush inherited a projected $5.6 trillion surplus over 10 years. His tax cuts, unjustified wars, unbudgeted Medicare Part D, expansion of the federal government, and the recession turned that into a $1.3 trillion deficit before President Obama even took office.
The recession itself is causing much of the deficit. President Obama added some short-term emergency spending to stimulate the economy.
Making all the Bush tax cuts permanent, as you wish, would add another $3.8 trillion to the deficit over the next 10 years.
August 11th, 2010 at 11:27 am
Tax cuts have been proved to increase revenue.
I have stated previously that I will not defend the spending of Bush, but why do you not like the Medicare part D? After all it is National Health, which you want.
The Democrats saw the same intelligence as the Republicans and voted for the war. The war over Kuwait was terminated on the condition that Saddam Hussein towed the line and was compliant with UN inspectors etc. He was not.
So Obama inherited a defecit. and his solution is to whine about Bush for 2 years and TRIPLE the deficit with a so called stimulus that achieved Nothing. The man all but grovelled on his knees to get the job and all he does is whine about Bush. He has no leadership experience whatsoever and it stands out a mile with his continued incompetence.
Keeping the Bush tax cuts will enable us all to spend OUR money the way we feel fit. We can make it circulate in our own way. I do not need a corrupt politician stealing any more of my money and spending it on paying back his Union chums, thank you.
August 11th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
David,
“Two-thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit. ” Where is this gem from? It was ridiculous to spend all that money in the first place.
You are very fond of spouting the lefty rhetoric, but very lacking in offering any reliable reporting. Where is your information coming from?
e.g.”Two-thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit. ”
” The public also favors moving forward with President Obama’s economic policies” Don’t make me laugh. His popularity is at an all time low, because of his policies. His own people are like rats deserting a sinking ship.
There are more, but I grow bored with you.
August 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm
Molly: Your statement that “tax cuts have been proved to increase revenue” defies logic and ignores history. Subtraction does not increase the sum. Reagan cut taxes, resulting in a deficit. Then Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton raised taxes, resulting in a surplus. Then Bush II and Obama cut taxes, resulting in a deficit. Obama is proposing cutting taxes again for 98% of us.
Bush’s Medicare Part D was a modest improvement. However, it was unbudgeted and unfunded, adding directly to the deficit. It also created the “donut hole” that left senior citizens vulnerable. Obama’s health reform will close the “donut hole” and reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first 10 years and $1.2 trillion in the second 10 years (here’s how).
Regarding the invasion and military occupation of Iraq: In the Senate, 21 Democrats, 1 Republican and 1 Independent voted against it. In the House, 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans and 1 Independent voted against it. Iraq had not attacked us and did not pose an imminent threat to us. Saddam Hussein was a horrible dictator, but he actually was complying with UN inspectors (who reported that they found no weapons of mass destruction). The UN inspectors only left Iraq due to the impending invasion. Both wars were funded off-budget by Bush, adding directly to the deficit. Obama opposed it from the beginning, and is ending it responsibly.
The Bush tax cuts and wars are still going on and still contributing to the deficit. The stimulus package was a cost of $787.2 billion over 10 years. It did not “triple the deficit.” However, it has been widely credited by economists for helping to prevent a major depression:
My previous statement that “two-thirds of Americans favor taxing the rich to reduce the deficit” was from the Bloomberg National Poll that I provided in a link. My previous statement that “the public also favors moving forward with President Obama’s economic policies rather than going back to President Bush’s policies” was from the SHRM/National Journal poll that I also provided in a link. Unlike you, I provide reliable sources of my information.
Obama’s approval ratings of 47-52% are not very far below his election margin of victory. Republicans are even less popular. Bush’s approval ratings were 33% when he left office and Congressional Republicans are currently at about 24%-33%.
I am sorry if refuting your unsubstantiated opinions with facts is so boring.
August 12th, 2010 at 5:25 am
This discussion has roamed far afield. The original topic of this post was a bill to aid small businesses with loan programs and tax cuts, written with the help of Republican Senators, and supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business — a pro-business bill with tax cuts that doesn’t add to the deficit.
August 12th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
What gives you the right to take my hard earned money and give it to someone else?
August 13th, 2010 at 4:05 am
Molly: “I” am not taking “your” hard earned money and giving it to “someone else.” “We” have elected representatives to tax “us” to provide services that benefit all of “us.”
“The government” is not some alien entity that has forcibly occupied our country to steal our money and impose its will on us. “We the people” are the government. If you don’t like it, you are free to vote for something different. You are also free to express your opinion to try to persuade a majority to agree with you.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, taxes under President Obama are at the lowest level since President Truman. President Obama has already cut taxes as part of the stimulus bill and is proposing cutting taxes again.
August 13th, 2010 at 7:08 am
Yes David, we all know what a pompous a$$ your are; you have displayed it on a number of occasions. I dare say you are employed somewhere in academia, if at all, and totally devoid of reality. Ask a few people who have lived with Communism or Socialism to get a take on the REAL world.
Regardless of how much you insult me or act superior, as you avoid the question by going off at a tangent it is quite obvious that you are incapable of arguing the basic principle at the core of your belief:-
What gives you the right to take my money and give it to someone else?
August 13th, 2010 at 8:04 am
I have consistently refuted your false statements and answered all of your loaded questions with facts and links to reliable sources of information, despite your insults.
August 17th, 2010 at 2:45 am
David,
And no matter how much you quote you are still incapable of telling me what gives you the right to steal my money and give it to someone else.
What is false about this statement?
August 17th, 2010 at 6:06 am
Molly: A question can not be true or false. In my previous comment, I was referring to the many other false statements you have made that I have refuted.
I believe I have already answered your question, but I will try again: I do not have the right to steal your money and give it to someone else.
August 17th, 2010 at 9:55 am
Molly, please excuse David. He is incapable of answering a direct question directly, and he uses facts and figures which don’t support his hypothesis to try to buttress his argument. Case in point:
“Molly: Your statement that “tax cuts have been proved to increase revenue” defies logic and ignores history. Subtraction does not increase the sum. Reagan cut taxes, resulting in a deficit. Then Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton raised taxes, resulting in a surplus. Then Bush II and Obama cut taxes, resulting in a deficit.”
Blah blah blah blah frigging blah. David won’t admit that taxes and REVENUE are the issue, not taxes and the DEFICIT. Tax cuts have demonstrably led to increased REVENUE to the government. Increased SPENDING (among other things, but purposely omitted from David’s discussion) leads to higher DEFICITS. To say that the “Obama tax cuts” are responsible for the current deficit is like saying “the bullet had nothing to do with the homicide” if you shot a man, he fell through the window, and dropped 20 stories to his death. The truth is that Reagan cut taxes and increased revenue to the government. Then he reduced spending as well which resulted in a surplus. Bush 2 and Obama have been spending like crazy, which would have increased the deficit regardless of any income tax rates or revenues.
Kind of like “tax refunds” has very little to do with the actual income tax liability and total income tax payments, but David would argue (or has argued, I should say) that higher tax refunds automatically means lower taxes. Possibly true, or maybe true in some cases, but not axiomatically true. And definitely not true in this economic climate when unemployment statistics are taken into account.
August 17th, 2010 at 6:06 pm
Greetings from New York.
@Open Minded,
Cutting taxes does not always automatically result in increased revenue. If we cut taxes to zero we should maximize revenue then, right? There is a sweet spot, where taxes are neither too high or too low, if what one wants is the most revenue.
Reagan had a surplus? Where did you come up with that? The federal government never had a balanced budget let alone a surplus during the Reagan years. Even if one looks at the deficit as a percent of GDP (which is much more forgiving) Reagan increased the federal deficit. Here’s a graph that shows what I am talking about:
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=fy11&chart=G0-fed&bar=0&stack=1&size=l&title=US%20Federal%20Deficit%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP&state=US&color=c&local=s
August 18th, 2010 at 5:08 am
Open Minded makes a valid but irrelevant point. It is true that deficits and surpluses depend on both revenue and spending – money in and money out. However, reducing taxes obviously reduces the amount of taxes received. All other things being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.
Historically, the Reagan, Bush, and Obama tax cuts all increased the deficit. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the 2001 Bush tax cut would cause government revenues to be 107.7 billion less in 2004, 107.4 billion less in 2005 and 135.2 billion less in 2006 than they would have been in the absence of the legislation. They estimated that the 2003 Bush tax cut reduced otherwise projected revenues by 148.7 billion in 2004, 82.2 billion in 2005 and 20.7 billion in 2006.
The right-wing theory is that tax cuts stimulate economic growth, which, in turn, increases tax revenue. Both of those effects are real, but they are indirect and only produce marginal returns.
It is true that tax cuts stimulate the economy (which is why Obama’s economic stimulus package included a tax cut). However, tax cuts only stimulate the economy to the extent that the money is spent in the economy.
It is also true that economic growth increases tax revenue. (A major cause of the current deficit is the past recession, current slow economic growth, and nearly jobless recovery.) However, only a fraction of economic growth produces tax revenue.
Tax cuts may indirectly increase tax revenue, but not nearly enough to replace the tax revenue that is lost directly. According to N. Gregory Mankiw (former chairman of Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers), payroll tax cuts only generate enough economic growth to recover about 17% of the revenue that is lost due to the tax cuts.
Right-wing politicians, talk-show hosts, and anonymous blog commenters are free to make ludicrous claims (and often do). However, few economists (even conservative economists) would agree with Molly’s blanket statement that “Tax cuts have been proved to increase revenue” or Open Minded’s statement that “Tax cuts have demonstrably led to increased REVENUE to the government.”
Tax cuts do not produce a net increase in tax revenue. Of course, the right-wingers real goal of tax cuts is not to increase tax revenue, but to deliberately decrease tax revenue. They want to “starve the beast.” In the words of Grover Norquist, “our goal is to shrink government to the size where we can drown it in a bathtub.”
August 18th, 2010 at 5:53 am
This was sent to me by a friend and about sums up the stimulus.
“Just wanted to let you know – today I received my 2010 Obama
Stimulus Package. It contained two watermelon seeds, cornbread mix, and 10 coupons to KFC. The directions were in Spanish.
Hope you get yours soon.”
August 18th, 2010 at 6:24 am
Molly: Despite your racist joke, the fact remains that President Obama’s stimulus package included $288 billion in tax cuts (one of the largest tax cuts in history), including $400 per individual or $800 for families, as well as additional tax cuts for children, college, first-time homebuyers, cars, energy efficiency, and small businesses.
President Obama is also proposing additional tax cuts for 98% of working Americans beginning in 2011. Like all tax cuts, they will increase the deficit.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:44 am
David,
“However, reducing taxes obviously reduces the amount of taxes received. All other things being equal, tax cuts increase the deficit.”
Poppycock! tax cuts allow small businesses to invest, to employ more people, who then pay taxes, encourage everyone to spend more of their money as they see fit, which stimulates the economy and increases revenues. Tax hikes make everyone nervous, small businesses can barely survive never mind expand, and the corporations sit tight. Tax cuts encourage investment and stimulate the economy. You are trying to change history. In the Reagan era people were so successful the left started referring to them as “greedy”. I remember, even if you find it convenient to forget.
The wealthy are leaving New York and New Jersey in droves due to the tax hikes, so how does that increase revenues? Chris Christie of New Jersey is my hero, and I wish we had a lot more like him.
Why do you keep repeating this “jobless recovery” drivel like a zombie following orders from your state run media. Recovery =less unemployment-not happened yet.( Incidentally, Obozo promised it would not go above 8%. Guess he failed again huh?) It is as thought these sheep get their daily instructions from the White House and every channel (laughingly called news) spouts the same 2 stories all day with the ‘catch phrase in vogue’ and all you pathetic little zombies repeat it for them. Haven’t met a lefty yet that can put a coherent argument together regarding why Socialism is so great.
And yet again Obozo is paying off the teachers union to buy their votes this November. Heaven forbid their ridiculous retirement funds should be cut like everyone else. $26 billion of our money to buy votes for ideology most of us are against.
August 18th, 2010 at 6:48 am
David,
“I do not have the right to steal your money and give it to someone else.”
Congratulations! You finally gave a straight answer. So now you finally acknowledge nobody has the right to do this, why do you advocate Socialism and spreading the wealth, because that is precisely what it is?
August 18th, 2010 at 6:50 am
LD, you’re right. I got confused about taxes and tax rate cuts and deficits and spending and revenue. I mis-stated what I incorrectly thought about Reagan-era surplusses without checking the facts. Thanks for the correction.
August 18th, 2010 at 7:06 am
Molly: I am not stealing your money and giving it to someone else.
Taxes are not “stealing.”
The original colonial-era Tea Party said “no taxation without representation.” They were not opposed to taxation with representation. In the U.S. Constitution, the Founding Fathers gave Congress the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”
The President and Congress are elected by the citizens and they pass laws with the consent of the public. If you don’t like taxes or the way your representatives spend them, you are free to try to elect people that reflect your views.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:21 am
David,
There was no taxation until after WWI. The War of Independence was to escape a Sovereign to whom taxes were due, and this country was begun as a Republic where each individual is sovereign and responsible for him or herself. If you are so eager to have a Sovereign again I suggest you go to a country that has one, because most of us here prefer to keep the USA great, and when our freedoms are gone there is nowhere else to go.
Europe has 50 years on us and finally admitted that they were wrong, and are cutting spending, decentralizing health care, paying down deficit, but Obama thinks he knows better, and you and your ilk follow like sheep. If he said the moon was made of green cheese, you zombies would start repeating it. Ever had an independent thought?
“The President and Congress are elected by the citizens and they pass laws with the consent of the public. ”
Really? So why did the Health care get passed or the so-called stimulus which the majority of the people were very much against? Why all the spend, spend, spend like a kid in a candy store with our money, which most of us are against? Why all the meetings behind closed doors? What ever happened to “the most transparent administration ever”? Obama is a fraud and a liar, and needs to go, along with his Marxism and Chicago style bullyboy tactics.
When my money is taken from me and given to another, it is stealing, or could even be considered slavery. Taxes are intended for infrastructure and defense, not handouts to those unwilling to support themselves. Did you know that of every dollar taken in taxes only 12 cents goes to the recipient of the so-called entitlement, due to the cost of top heavy government? How efficient. What happened to helping those on hard times directly through our churches and other houses of worship?
Please tell me what the government has run successfully?
August 18th, 2010 at 10:45 am
“There was no taxation until after WWI?” Really? I suppose that you might have meant to say that there was no progressive income tax (except during the Civil War) until after WWI (continuously for almost the last 100 years).
“If you are so eager to have a Sovereign again I suggest you go to a country that has one.” Thank you for giving me this opportunity to officially go on record as being opposed to monarchy.
You already had one chance to vote against Obama, but he won the election. You will have another chance to vote against him in 2012. You are also free to campaign for repealing the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments, if you wish.
“Please tell me what the government has run successfully?” OK, off the top of my head I would say WWII, the Marshall Plan, the GI bill, the interstate highway system, rural electrification, national parks, National Weather Service, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, bans on harmful chemicals (leaded gasoline, DDT, PCBs, CFCs), Social Security, FDIC, NIH/CDC, the Civil Rights Act, NASA and the moon landing, to name a few.
August 18th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
Social Security? Seriously? The same Social Security that I’m thinking of?
Come on, be honest. The list above is long enough without you trying to slip something like Social Security in just to make us laugh.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Molly: In comment #42, you seem to be in favor of the following: “tax cuts allow small businesses to invest, to employ more people, who then pay taxes, encourage everyone to spend more of their money as they see fit, which stimulates the economy and increases revenues.”
The bill that is ostensibly the topic of this post would have done exactly that — provide $30 billion in loans and $12 billion in tax cuts to small businesses to employ more people and stimulate the economy without adding to the deficit.
It was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business and a majority of the Senate, but it was blocked by the unanimous opposition of Senate Republicans.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:12 am
Open Minded: Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in history, virtually eliminating the extreme poverty of old age for the past 75 years. It is also extremely popular with the public.
August 19th, 2010 at 4:18 am
David,
“Social Security has been one of the most successful government programs in history, ”
That is the best laugh I have had since Obama and his clowns were elected!
August 19th, 2010 at 4:21 am
David,
Re your comment 51. How many times do you need telling that Conservatives, including me, are all for tax cuts to help small business, but against all the pork SPENDING that the left always want to sneak in the back door with it. Pork attached to unrelated Bills needs to be stopped.
August 19th, 2010 at 5:00 am
Molly: Social Security provides economic security to all Americans (including you). 52.5 million people currently receive benefits, providing 40% of the income of people age 65 and older. Social Security successfully lowered the poverty rate among the elderly from 35% in 1960 to less than 10% today. Without it, 55% of the severely disabled and 47% of the elderly would be plunged into poverty. I am glad you both find that so amusing.
You say that “Conservatives, including me, are all for tax cuts to help small business” but that apparently does not apply to this tax cut to help small business. What “pork” spending was included in this bill?
August 19th, 2010 at 11:11 am
‘You say that “Conservatives, including me, are all for tax cuts to help small business” but that apparently does not apply to this tax cut to help small business. What “pork” spending was included in this bill?’
None, because it did not get passed, but they sneaked it into the $26bn to pay off the teachers’ and other unions. Sadly, food stamps to be cut by $12bn to help cover the cost, because recipients are unable to vote and therefore serve no purpose.
I notice on your list of wonders the Government runs you excluded the Postal service and education and the no-good, interfering environmental protection agency .LOL Worst of the lot. How about the state run media, Government Motors, Obama banking? This man and his cronies have zero experience working in commerce, would not know a balance sheet if it was right under their noses, but they take over huge portions of our economy and illegally pay off the unions that elected them. Crooks!
However, some of the others come under the two items I stated earlier are the job of
government, namely infrastructure and defense.
Ummm, Weather forecasting has to be the only profession where you can be consistantly wrong and not be fired.
NASA was a great thing, but now they are instructed by Obama that their number one aim is to make the muslim community feel good about their contribution to technology and science (?) And that is?????
They were still living in tents when we went and found the oil for them and started drilling, for which we are now at their mercy thanks to the interfering EPA have too much power and have stopped nuclear power, stopped drilling for our own oil, trying to stop coal power. Oh but we have windmills and solar, which must be at least 2% of our total power capacity and useless in winter. Great. We have more oil than they do, and if we were using our own we could tell the Middle East to shove it. Meanwhile the Chinese are drilling our oil from the Gulf, whilst our wonderful Government stops OUR drilling, putting thousands more out of work. The Gulf oil spill would not have happened without the EPA insisting they drilled so far out in deep water, when Louisiana had approved drilling in shallow water. Government interference in something they know nothing about at it’s best.
I just can’t wait for California to start plugging in their electric cars and have constant blackouts instead of the regular brown outs,(I used to live there) of the power that they have to buy from other states because the environmentalists stopped any production of their own. Of course they ram down our throats how ‘environmentally friendly’ these cars are, and the new light bulbs, but conveniently omit the huge amount of pollution involved in making the mercury containing light bulbs and the car batteries.
As always, the Lefty whackos and their unintended consequences.
August 19th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
Molly: You provide the usual mishmash of unrelated issues, unsupported opinions, and outright falsehoods.
If just one Senate Republican had voted for the small business tax cut bill, it would have passed as it was. What “pork” spending was in it? You can’t identify any because there was none.
How does a cut in future food stamp spending qualify as “pork” spending?
The Postal Service does a good job, but it became a revenue-neutral independent agency in 1970.
“We have more oil than they do, and if we were using our own we could tell the Middle East to shove it.” Not even close. The U.S. has less than 2% of the world’s oil but uses more than 20%. The U.S. has about 21-30 billion barrels of proved oil reserves compared to 727-755 billion barrels in the Middle East. The U.S. consumes about 6.6 billion barrels per year. If we drilled everywhere in the U.S. and told the Middle East to “shove it,” we would run out in 3-4 years.
What all that has to do with the small business tax cut bill, I don’t know.
August 19th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
David, the fact that you’re willing to blather on about “economic security to all Americans” while ignoring the explosive economic catastrophe which we will all see in our lifetimes when your treasured Social Security becomes at first a revenue drain and then entirely insolvent convinces me once and for all that you are nothing but a partisan political hack. I’ll admit it’s the third rail of politics, that nobody currently in Washington dares to suggest a fix (or even putting on the brakes) because they’ll lose the retiree vote, but to espouse it as an example of government success is truly a joke.
Be honest, now, even if it’s just to yourself. Aren’t you a little embarassed to have included Social Security in the list above?
And to call the Postal Service a revenue-neutral agency is just unrealistic. Nobody but the government can send an envelope across the country in two days for 42 cents, but the post office has posted net losses for 14 of the last 16 quarters. $3.5 billion in the red for last quarter alone. Seriously, quit joking.
August 24th, 2010 at 4:08 am
Open Minded: I’m serious as a heart attack. Social Security is an extremely successful government program. Without it, 55% of the severely disabled and 47% of the elderly would be plunged into poverty (which you apparently find hilarious). More on that topic in a previous post.
Molly challenged me to name one thing the government has run successfully. I named 15. You added the post office to my list and then proceeded to criticize your own selection. That’s funny.
Meanwhile, back to the topic of this post, you still haven’t explained why you oppose loans and tax cuts for small business.
August 24th, 2010 at 9:23 am
David,
The three extra ones I mentioned, I just presumed you omitted them out of embarrassment in the hope that the rest of us( about 5 readers you have it appears) would not notice. Social Security is broke, and the money spent. The General bonds issued by Government are not Social Security funds. Government should stick with defense, securing the borders and infrastructure, and get out of the way on anything else.
I have never said I am against tax cuts for small business, but as usual you feebly attempt to put words in my mouth in some lame attempt to act superior.(yawn) I realize you are a little slow, but I refer you to my previous post listing the “pork” that the spendthrift left wanted to add.
You are so predictable. I am yet to come across a lefty who can argue a principle, because none of you have a clue WHY you think something is a good idea. It always comes down to emotion and “feelings” which are irrelevant when it comes to right and wrong. When backed into a corner, the usual stance of a lefty is:-
a) Dismiss the question as irrelevant
b) Change the subject and go on the attack
c) Always use the extreme as an example, and if all else fails,
d) Insult the opposition.
You have used them all. It would be laughable if it weren’t for the fact that you are allowed to vote, and negate my vote based on careful consideration of policies and facts.
So, now that you have finally admitted that you have no right to steal my money and give it to another, please tell me what gives the Government the right to do same; and please spare me the elected official garbage. This nation was formed as a Republic, where all men are created equal with certain rights given to each by God, not politicians. What gives Obama, Reid and Pelosi the right to turn this nation from that and into a Socialist/Communist nation against the will of the people?
August 24th, 2010 at 10:42 am
Molly: Social Security is not “broke.” It is self-funded by the payroll tax, is completely separate from the federal budget, and does not add to the federal budget deficit. By law, it is invested in U.S. Treasury bonds, the most secure investment on earth. It currently has a $2.5 trillion balance. Without any changes in the program, it is fully funded for another 27 years (until 2037) and will still be able to pay 75% of benefits indefinitely after that. A flat tax on all income would make it completely solvent for the foreseeable future. (Isn’t a flat tax a “fair tax?”) Social Security is also extremely popular. Please run candidates for public office on a platform of eliminating Social Security and see how far they get.
I did not “put words in your mouth” as being “against tax cuts for small business,” I directly quoted you as writing “Conservatives, including me, are all for tax cuts to help small business.” That is why it is perplexing that you and other conservatives are against this bill with tax cuts for small business. I have read through your previous comments again, but I am still unable to find your “list” of the “pork spending” in this bill. How is a spending cut for food stamps “pork spending?”
I have consistently refuted your unsubstantiated opinions with facts and links to reliable sources of information, despite your insults.
“The Government” represents us. Obama, Reid and Pelosi (and the rest of Congress) were elected by “the will of the people.”
August 25th, 2010 at 3:26 am
Dave,
Read and learn:-
http://www.visiontoamerica.org/articles/obama-and-marxism.html?utm_source=Vision+to+America+Announcements&utm_campaign=eda5af7345-Vision_to_America_Announcements_8_24&utm_medium=email
August 25th, 2010 at 11:02 am
Molly: Thanks for the link. You must have had to look long and hard for that one. The post (from an obscure site promoting America as a “Christian Republic”) asks the question “is Obama actually a Marxist?” but never really gets around to answering it or providing any evidence of it. The author does say that sometimes people become Marxist without realizing it.
For example, if support for Social Security is Marxist, about 80% of Americans may be Marxist without knowing it.
President Obama’s alleged Marxism is debunked here, here, and here.
Here’s a question for you: Is a bill providing loans and tax cuts for small business (supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) capitalist or socialist?
August 25th, 2010 at 11:33 am
David,
Obama openly states that he surrounded himself with Marxists through school and college, and is a student of Saul Alinsky, so he does not need to say the words, he lives them. The info os for those of you who are so self satisfied about how much you “care” and you are being duped. The media groupies work very hard to deceive us about Obama. Some of us did our own homework BEFORE the election, most of the remainder are finally getting the picture, but there is no hope for some of you. You believe what you want to, but the man’s actions are quite obviously Marxist, just like his father, grandfather and everyone he keeps around him. He hates this country, and everything we stand for.
Take a look around the world and find those that are wealthy and successful, then tell us which of them is NOT operating under Capitalism and a free market. Which are the poorest? Communist, Socialist, Dictatorships.Where is your 80% support figure from?
Incidentally,you keep stating that Social Security is invested in bonds, and stating that I am incorrect in my comment that Clinton Promised a lockbox after raising contributions, but there are NO funds. current payments going in do not cover the outgoings and it will get worse as the Baby Boomers reach retirement. What is your evidence?
You still haven’t told me what gives this administration to turn this Republic into a Communist/Socialist nation.
August 25th, 2010 at 12:15 pm
Molly: My source about the overwhelming public support for Social Security was two recent polls that I linked to previously. Even the Hampton Roads Tea Party “knows that trimming programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid doesn’t have enough popular support.”
I also previously linked to a Fox News article that said Social Security is fully funded for another 27 years (until 2037) and will still be able to pay 75% of benefits indefinitely after that. Official information about Social Security funding and investments is here.
What gives you the right to decide who is Marxist/Communist/Socialist? Don’t individuals get to decide what their own political affiliations are? (Sen. Bernie Sanders is the only member of Congress who describes himself as a “democratic socialist.” His Vermont constituents continue to re-elect him to office.) According to you, taxes are “stealing money and giving it to someone else” and the only legitimate functions of government are “defense, securing the borders and infrastructure.” By that extremely broad definition, every member of Congress is socialist and this has been a Communist country for a very long time.
One of the fastest-growing and most successful economies today is communist China, but neither I nor President Obama is in favor of emulating them.
The premise of your question is absurd, but I will try to answer it anyway. If it was true that “this administration is turning this Republic into a Communist/Socialist nation,” they would have that right by the consent of the citizens who elected them to office. If a majority of Americans believe as you do that President Obama is turning our country into a Communist/Socialist nation, and they don’t want that to happen, they will vote him out of office in the next election.
You still haven’t answered my question: Is a bill providing loans and tax cuts for small business (supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) capitalist or socialist?
August 25th, 2010 at 1:07 pm
OK, I am going to wade in here a little bit to point out the truth in both arguments.
Social Security is solvent, on the books, for many years. The problem is the federal government has come to rely on payroll taxes to purchase treasury bills, keeping the interest rates the government pays low, providing a cheap and easy revenue source for deficit spending.
The problem with this is when the Trust Fund needs to draw on the funds saved. The Trust Fund no longer is an investor purchasing the securities, it expects to be able to cash them in for full value.
Now, these are not worthless investments. Last year, for a very brief period of time, investors were willing accept a guaranteed negative return on their investment just because that was the only place safe enough to park large sums of money during the mini panic.
Problem is will taxpayers be willing to finally get around to paying enough in taxes to support general spending absent payroll tax revenue and when the government is actually going to have to start paying back some of the money the Trust Fund lent to it? The investment is safe, because the federal government can always resort to printing money to repay the Trust Fund, but the risk is hyper inflation.
Everybody wants everything, and nobody is willing to pay for it.
August 30th, 2010 at 10:04 am
UPDATE: Small businesses have put hiring, supply buying and real estate expansion on hold as they wait out the vote on a small-business-aid bill that stalled in the Senate earlier this summer.
September 10th, 2010 at 10:19 am
UPDATE: When the Senate reconvenes, Sen. Voinovich is prepared to break ranks with Republicans to pass the bill to provide aid to small businesses. (He is free to do the right thing because he is retiring at the end of his term.)
September 10th, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Hey David,
Remember what you said on another thread about how there was time to rescind the (in my opinion) burdensome requirement for businesses to issue 1099’s for even modest expenditures? Turns out that an amendment removing the requirement is the one stipulation Voinovich has told Reid must be included to get his vote.
Looks like the 1099 requirement is going to be history. Three cheers for Voinovich!
Also, from the link you provided, I will lift this quote:
“Voinovich, a longtime champion of federal transportation spending, said he also plans to work with Obama to pursue a six-year reauthorization of the federal highway bill. Voinovich said the president called him personally this week to ask for his support but offered few details about the plan – including how it would be funded.
Voinovich has argued for raising the gas tax, the traditional source of funding for federal roads projects.”
Now, that’s a subject very near and dear to the heart of the trucking industry, let’s get that bill done as well. Please note he’s in favor of increasing the fuel tax, which is the strongly favored option of raising increased revenue within the trucking industry. That’s another compromise EVERY Democrat should be able to live with if that’s what it takes to get his vote to break any filibuster. There is no reasonable argument against raising the federal fuel tax.
September 10th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Ooops, there is a reasonable reason to argue against raising the fuel tax (from my perspective) after consideration of our President’s speech today. I am against using an increase in the HIGHWAY tax on diesel to subsidize my competitors. I am in favor of increased usage of rail for transportation needs. I am not in favor of subsidizing my rail competitors. My rail competitors are basically four huge rail companies that monopolize rail within certain areas of the nation. The only thing that keeps their costs within reason is the competition from trucking. My crystal ball tells me they already have advantage in the future to drive me into the dirt without my being forced to pay taxes to subsidize their doing it. Why should we subsidize monopolies?
My objection is reasonable.
September 10th, 2010 at 7:09 pm
Triple post.
I am willing to settle for what Voinovich settles for. On his way to retirement, perhaps he can show the way to leadership. Old school Republicans like our own John Warner did the same.
September 12th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
And now John Boehner announces he might vote for the extension of tax cuts exactly as Obama wants if those are the only extensions he can get.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39131165/ns/politics
Problem with this is that if Obama gets everything he wants and the economy does not respond, it will empower Republicans to claim that if only things had been done their way, things would be better whether the claim is true or not.
September 13th, 2010 at 6:56 pm
Update on the repeal of the 1099 requirement for businesses:
There are two proposed amendments thus far to repeal the amendments as reported by the OOIDA (Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association) here:
http://www.landlinemag.com/todays_news/Daily/2010/Sept10/091310/091310-01.htm
The first to be debated is one proposed by a Republican Senator that probably has conditions on it that will be unacceptable to Democrats. The second to be debated does not completely eliminate the requirement but makes it much less onerous to small businesses, but will it be enough to satisfy Voinovich.
If any of you follow the link, please note that in my opinion OOIDA grossly exaggerates the number of 1099’s that would be required from a small business trucker as being in the hundreds. Yes, for me (a self employed truck driver) the requirement to submit 1099’s will be burdensome I estimate the number I would need to issue would only be in the dozens, not the hundreds. While I have not discussed this with my tax accountant, I think I can safely estimate it will double if not triple my tax compliance expenditures.
While the Democratic proposal might not completely remove the headaches, at least the reporting requirements become more reasonable. It raises the reporting requirement threshold from $600 to $5,000 and exempt businesses with fewer then 25 employees from some of the reporting requirements. The latter would include me. I really wish they would also exempt all diesel purchases from reporting requirements no matter the size of the business. Diesel purchases are already under the microscope through the IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) reporting requirements with great pains being taken to track down the fuel tax cheats so issuing 1099s for these purchases really are all pain with no gain.
I understand the motivation behind the 1099 requirement, it is an attempt to corner those tax cheats who under-report income, especially cash transactions. I think I can live with the Democratic amendment as long as (looking into the future) the $5,000 threshold is indexed to inflation. Yes, it will still be a burden on me, but it is a burden I am ready to bear to help crack down on the tax cheats.
But it all depends on Voinovich. What I’m wondering is why, if he is in the driver’s seat, he doesn’t just propose his own amendment which includes everything he wants? Hopefully he will understand the Republican amendment is DOA (Dead On Arrival) but perhaps the Democratic proposal does not go far enough to suit him.
September 14th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
Update:
The filibuster was broken with Senator George LeMieux (R-Florida) joining with Voinovich to vote with the Dems and independents to break it.
Both amendments to modify or eliminate the new 1099 requirement for businesses came up for vote and BOTH FAILED TO PASS. According to NPR (National Public Radio) the Republican amendment was defeated by Democrats and the Democratic amendment was defeated by Republicans (although there must have been some Democrats voting with them).
Egads! Both sides agree something needs to be done but partisan bickering prevents anything from getting done. Personally I agree with the Democratic proposal as being the most reasonable since the Republican amendment included a poison pill which would have done serious damage to the health care bill.
I know there is still time to change the requirement, but time is drawing short. While the new 1099 requirement does not take effect until 2012, after the 1st of the year, 2011, I have start becoming a butt head in all my business transactions. Nobody gets my business unless they provide me with an EIN (Employer Identification Number) or if they are a private individual they can show me their Social Security Card along with a picture ID. The book-keeping headaches are just around the corner.
September 15th, 2010 at 3:59 am
Little David: I think you have described the situation well. Republicans are even blocking things that both parties agree on for partisan gain.
Soon they will be playing for higher stakes with the tax law. Both parties want to pass President Obama’s tax cuts on everybody’s taxable income up to $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples) and it has broad public support. If Republicans insist on including tax cuts for the 2% of Americans with taxable income in excess of those amounts, all the Bush tax cuts will expire at the end of this year.
September 15th, 2010 at 8:39 am
DC and LD, neither of you is so naive to believe what DC has written – “Republicans are blocking things that both parties agree on for partisan gain”.
We all know that “good legislation” is routinely hijacked by adding other controversial measures or pork spending which can then be passed under the cover of “bipartisan support”.
It’s happening right now, with Harry Reid injecting his DREAM immigration reform (in addition to the repeal of DADT) into the defense policy bill, which would otherwise have had overwhelming bipartisan support. Don’t try to tell us that these Republicans on this issue are the first to stand in the way of a bill because of a few thorny add-ons.
You need to ask yourselves if the 1099 requirement is loathed so universally, then how did it get included in the health care bill in the first place? Oh, that’s right, because Nancy Pelosi told us we had to pass the bill before we could figure out what’s in it.
September 15th, 2010 at 10:07 am
The Johanns amendment offered by Republicans would have cost $17.1 billion in lost revenue over the next 10 years.
The 1099 clause was included in the health reform law as a way to fund the Prevention and Public Health Fund over the next 10 years for prevention and wellness programs.
It was also intended to close a tax loophole (a proposal supported by President Bush, the GAO, the IRS, and the Treasury Departments under both President Bush and President Obama). Are Republicans in favor of tax evasion?
Both Republicans and Democrats want to relieve small businesses of the burdensome administrative requirement (as the Nelson amendment offered by Democrats would have done). Republicans blocked it just because they can.
Similarly, Democrats and Republicans support loans and tax cuts for small businesses. Republicans blocked that too (until Sen. LeMieux and Sen. Voinovich broke ranks yesterday) and will continue to needlessly delay the final vote for another 30 hours. It will be interesting to see how many end up voting in favor of it.
House Speaker Pelosi did not say that Congress needed to pass health reform so that they could find out what was in it. The whole health reform bill (as well as shorter summaries of key provisions) were posted online for anybody to read.
In the context of all the egregious misinformation that was being spread about health reform (“death panels,” etc.), what she actually said was:
September 15th, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Open Minded,
You are a businessman right? Surely you understand why there is a legitimate need for the 1099 requirement. Now, please do not think I am not in favor of repeal, it is too big a headache for me and I estimate it will double my tax compliance expenses (I earlier said maybe triple, but I think I have figured out how to keep it down to only double).
Let me explain the how easy it is for some to under report income in my industry (I can’t do so myself, I get a 1099 for all my gross). I frequently hire businesses or individuals to “lump” my freight off the truck. Due to OSHA requirements it is now nearly impossible for me to unload most of my own freight, so I must bow to the extortion and hire overpaid lumpers. Now, lumpers are normally required only at grocery warehouses, but I regularly haul to them. The majority of the time I pay lumper fees with cash since any other method increases my own expenses. To claim the lumper fee on my own taxes, I am required to get either an EIN (Employer Identification Number) or SSN. While I am confident the EIN’s I get are accurate, I often suspect the SSN’s I get are made up. Even if an individual is not trying to cheat on taxes, he still has to worry about identity theft and giving your SSN away to every trucker you do business with is pretty risky.
Lumping is pretty profitable if you can line up a steady gig. Two different self employed lumpers I hired drove vehicles I could not afford, one a BMW and the other a Corvette. But do they report all of their earnings? Well, as I said, they might not even give me an accurate SSN and even if they do, they need not report all their income, just most of it. The only thing for sure they need report is all the industry check service payments because it is easily checked and then a small portion of the cash income. Why only a portion of the cash? Well, I have a receipt, but what are the chances that all of their cash customers are going to be audited by the IRS? As long as 100% of their customers are not audited, the IRS will have no way of proving how much cash they received since there is no 1099. I am sure even lumping companies run by bright individuals probably shave some of their cash income off of what they report. Why not, they can get away with it. Heck, they might have 6 figure profits but only claim an extremely modest 10 or 20K profit depending on how far they want to push it. The chances are slim they will be audited in the first place and even if they are? Well the IRS can’t prove anything without the paper trail.
Now, as I said, I understand the legitimate reasoning behind the new 1099 requirement, but out of self interest (additional bookkeeping and expense) I hope the requirement is removed, at least for small businesses like me. Besides, the way I see it, why shouldn’t the lumpers get the same tax “benefits” as the roofer who offers to give me a discount on reroofing my house as long as I pay cash?
The Nelson (D-Florida) amendment was reasonable. It upped the threshold and eliminated most if not all the requirements for businesses with less then 25 employees. Anyone with more then 25 employees probably already has an accountant on the payroll to deal with the headaches.
Personally, I think the reason the Nelson amendment was defeated was because some Democrats are in bed with the oil and gas companies. The expense of Nelson’s amendment would have been paid for by removing some tax credits from them. Personally, I do not understand why, with what the price of crude oil currently is, and the potential for how high it could go if the economy improves, we need to dangle carrots in front of the oil companies to explore for and extract oil. BP will not explore without the tax inducements? OK, then BP just needs to bid lower on the lease rights so they can still make a profit. It is called market forces, right?
I think the Democratic proposal was the most reasonable and I think I am the perfect person to sit as judge. The Democratic proposal would have removed most if not all the reporting requirements for a small businessman such as myself. While it would have removed some tax motivations for oil and gas companies, I do not think the tax motivations are really necessary, and since I am such a large consumer of diesel who wants to keep the price of it low, I think I serve as an honest judge of that as well.
September 16th, 2010 at 5:45 am
I am a businessman, my company has been around for three years and I employ two other people. Lumpers aside (but I agree that appears to be a relevant case study), the 1099 requirements would have me preparing a 1099 for Sam’s Club, Dell, Office Max, and some vendors I frequent on eBay. I didn’t get into business to document every private business transaction to the government.
I don’t really agree that you’re a “perfect person to sit as judge”. You’ve said here plenty of times before that you support the stimulus because it allowed you to buy a new truck. I wouldn’t exactly call that objective. You admit that you are a large consumer of diesel and want to keep the price low…how does that comport to an “honest judge”?
Now, in a more recent post on Nye’s blue-dog status, you’re saying that if the rich aren’t willing to spend money to help the unemployment numbers then the government should just confiscate their money via tax increases and do what’s necessary but less effectively. How is it the responsibility of “the wealthy” to “keep the majority of voters happy” as you attest? The wealthy are keeping their cash due to uncertainty, not in an effort to employ more foreign workers than Americans. And it’s not just the wealthy spending money on caviar and Cristal that’s going to pull this economy out of the rut that it’s in, as you seem to think.
September 16th, 2010 at 9:51 am
Open Minded: The Democratic amendment would have relieved you of the 1099 reporting requirement. Too bad Republicans defeated it.
September 16th, 2010 at 11:03 am
The defeat of the health care plan would have done the same thing. Too bad the Democrats passed it.
September 16th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Open Minded: Right – repeal health reform and deny 36 million Americans health insurance just so you don’t have to do paperwork.
September 16th, 2010 at 1:51 pm
UPDATE: The Senate has passed the small business bill today 61-38. All but two Republicans voted against loans and tax cuts to small businesses. The bill was supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business.
September 16th, 2010 at 7:15 pm
I spend somewhere in the neighborhood of $70,000 a year on diesel fuel, that’s a quick estimate because I do not have my tax records with me in the truck. (140,000 miles divided by 6 mpg times $3 a gallon). I think I am more affected by high fuel prices then your average citizen. I will also tell you that, while I do not have huge sums invested in the stock market, half of what I do have invested there is in BP. I’ll stick with my honest judge claim.
Perhaps you didn’t see some of my posts on what I have seen out here on the road with some of my customers. Facilities forcing employees to work mandatory overtime. I’ll give an example because I do not believe I have shared this example on this site. I went in to pick up a load at one of our better customers. On the wall of the office was a sign saying “MANDATORY OVERTIME for all shifts, including weekends due to volume”. A few days later I picked up a load from one of their competitors. There was no sign, but I asked the gal checking me in about the overtime situation. She said they had mandatory overtime. It was not because one facility was out competing the other, it was industry wide, but they would rather force their employees to work tremendous overtime then hire additional help. At one of our customers I ran into one fella who was expected to work 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. He was griping he didn’t even have enough free time to cut his own grass.
I do not understand the reasoning. Even if employers’ worst fears about the economy turn out to be true, they can always lay the new employees back off. But if American consumers do not have jobs and their unemployment runs out, they will stop being consumers. Right now at least some employers have the business to justify hiring additional help, and if they are not going to hire the help and instead try to run permanently on forced overtime, they (the employers) should be taxed on the overtime wages to pay for the extended unemployment benefits.
I almost think some employers are waiting with hiring additional help until after the election. They do not want to hand Obama even the slightest hint of success until after then.
By the way, I didn’t credit the stimulus for helping me getting the financing, I credited the TARP. If it had not been for the TARP the credit market would have froze up. I am not sure why you think that affects my objectivity since I objectively was giving credit where credit was due. As for the stimulus I just said stimulus freight (and yes I have pulled some) needs a driver behind the wheel just like any other freight.
September 17th, 2010 at 5:29 am
We’re not waiting until after the election to hire additional help. And it has nothing to do with “handing Obama even the slightest hint of success”. I could care less about Obama’s popularity when I’ve got payroll to meet and back taxes to catch up on.
We’re waiting until after the new Congress takes office in January. Because this Congress and these politicians (both R’s and D’s) have shown us that they’re willing to do almost anything. We’re seriously worried about what’s going to be crammed through a lame duck session when all the politicians will realize they’ve got no accountability to their constituents for two months. The losers will have two months to stockpile their favors for a lucrative life after politics. The uncertainty of the political posturing over the next 5 months makes my business planning impossible.
Believe me I’m hoping for a massive sea change in DC, I think an R majority in the House is an obvious possibility and even a majority in the Senate has an outside chance. What I want to happen doesn’t have a chance of happening until 2012, because there can’t be a veto-proof R majority in the Senate this time around. But I’m deeply concerned about what’s going to happen in November and December, after the elections. I’m not doing anything different in my business until after that fallout.
September 17th, 2010 at 11:26 am
Open Minded-Hang in there, the Tea Party is getting stronger by the day!
Just for David:-
Tax Cuts – As Explained By A Democrat
If you don’t understand the Democrats’ version of tax cuts (and you are not alone), maybe this will help explain it:
The Difference Between Republicans and Democrats
A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.
The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican’s pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept $15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five.
Now you understand the difference between Republicans & Democrats.
50,000 people go to a baseball game, but the game was rained out. A refund was then due.
The team was about to mail refunds when the Congressional Democrats stopped them and suggested that they send out refund amounts based on the Democrat National Committee’s interpretation of fairness.
After all, if the refunds were made based on the price each person paid for the tickets, most of the money would go to the ticket holders of the most expensive tickets. That would be unfair and unconscionable.
People in the $10 seats will get back $15, because they have less money to spend. Call it an “Earned Income Ticket Credit.” Persons “earn” it by demonstrating little ambition, few skills and poor work habits, thus keeping them at entry-level wages.
People in the $25 seats will get back $25, because that’s only fair.
People in the $50 seats will get back $1, because they already make a lot of money and don’t need a refund. After all, if they can afford a $50 ticket, then they must not be paying enough taxes.
People in the $75 luxury seats will have to pay another $50, because they have way too much to spend.
The people driving (or walking) by the stadium who couldn’t afford to watch the game will get $10 each, even though they didn’t pay anything in, because they need the most help (sometimes known as Affirmative Action!).
Now do you understand?
If not, contact Representative Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid or Barack Hussein Obama for assistance.
September 17th, 2010 at 7:27 pm
Molly,
Fine jokes, but let’s talk reality and see if you laugh then.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans:
When it comes to fixing Virginia’s transportation problems, most Democrats are in favor of raising the fuel tax. Not only is it the fairest, most efficient method of raising increased revenue, it also helps motivating breaking our addiction to foreign crude oil as well as pleasing environmentalists by motivating decreased CO2 emissions. The more fuel efficient your vehicle is, the less tax you pay per mile to travel.
What are Republicans in favor of? Tollroads. Not just new construction, they want to put tolls on highways already paid for without doing any improvements to the highways other then putting up the new tollbooths (the proposal to put a tollbooth on I-85 at the North Carolina border). Nationally, the average is for a third of the money collected in tolls goes towards paying for the expense of collecting the tolls, you have to pay all those attendants to stick their hands out at the tollbooth after all. If the Democrats were in favor of tollroads they probably would explain the benefits of the additional jobs created and the Tea Party would condemn it as being another socialist program. If Democrats were in favor of tollroads the Tea Party would explain how putting up tollbooths on both I-85 and I-95 at the North Carolina line like both Governor McDonnell and Senator Wagner want to do is unconstitutional because it is a thinly disguised attempt to tax interstate commerce. All the intrastate traffic travels for free and only the interstate traffic pays the toll.
Are you laughing yet? What, I didn’t get even a chuckle out of you? OK, how about this.
The Republicans pride themselves on being pro-business and accuse the Democrats of being anti-business but what about the trucking business? The VTA (Virginia Trucking Association) which represents over 500 Virginia businesses says fuel taxes are the fairest, most efficient method of raising increased revenue for highway construction and maintenance but which party agrees with them? It ain’t the Republicans. If the Democrats were in favor of tollroads the Tea Party would point to it as another example of them being anti-business.
Still not laughing? Well if the reason you’re not laughing is because you are shocked and choking back the tears I will understand why.
September 21st, 2010 at 12:24 pm
UPDATE!
Senate majority leader Harry Reid votes against advancing the defense policy bill, which included (1) the repeal of DADT and (2) his DREAM immigration reform, which would prohibit illegal immigrants who had applied for DREAM status from being deported!
The majority leader is against gays serving openly in the military, and he is against undocumented, illegal immigrants pursuing a clear path to citizenship! What is this world coming to??
September 21st, 2010 at 1:29 pm
Open Minded: As you are well aware, “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., also voted against the measure as a procedural tactic. Under Senate rules, casting his vote with the majority of the Senate enables him to revive the bill at a later date.”
September 24th, 2010 at 9:45 am
UPDATE: Yesterday, the House passed the bill providing loans and tax cuts to small businesses 237-187. Democrats (including Rep. Nye) supported it 236-13. Republicans almost unanimously opposed it 1-174. It will be signed into law by President Obama.
October 21st, 2010 at 6:57 pm
I’ve struggled with getting quality advice on the best methods of to improve your home that will have the highest impact on the value of your home.
October 22nd, 2010 at 6:15 am
it was great to know about it … trying to get more info on this thing ..will post the updates here ..
…
October 23rd, 2010 at 10:51 pm
I really like this website. I really want useful information like this page for my own.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:19 pm
This was a very fun discussion but I fail to see the logic that this Molly is spouting. Does she not get why we have a government stucture? That taxes although sometimes unevenly divided are a necessary evil? Or that sometimes people are forced to do the right things for others due to others narrow minded ideas about the people who are in need. If she really wanted to rail away and complain about how unfair life is then why doesn’t she look at the facts presented to her as to why so much wealth has gone to the top over the past 80yrs. Now there’s is the real re-distrubtion of peoples hard earned monies.
Oh well, I was glad to see that the small business benefit finally passed, no thanks to the republicans that’s for sure.
@ Molly: I guess I’ve never seen anyone individual so brainwashed into believing the political rhetoric that the Republicans have been spouting. You used the word sheeple and you don’t even know you are the worst sheeple of all. But the insane don’t know they’re insane either so I guess it stands to reason. And how long did you say you lived here? Oh that’ right you acquired your citizenship through marriage to a soldier? Wasn’t that it?
Well my ascendants have been in this country since the American Revolution and for you to take an attitude about our elected Presidents as if you are deserving of an opinion about our country in the short time you’ve lived here doesn’t deserve a comment.
@ David…I’d like to thank you for your intellectual answers and facts to back them up. I really enjoyed your kindness and patience and understanding when it came to answering Molly’s diatribe. You are a true gentelman and scholar sir.
December 7th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Dear openminded: as your nom de plume is suppose to suggest, have you ever stopped to think how that much of the wealthy are wealthy only because of unfair business practices to their employees. Or because they’ve bought their politicians to help them enact tax laws that help them get most of what they paid in, returned to them. Or because of who they are in bed with. Our government is the only thing that is left to help the low to middle class americans to survive in our society. And if we don’t or can’t consume(as the business world refers to us) then the business world will never recover. If the consumers of america can’t get livable wages then someone is going to have to take on the burden of all these people who live here. We are all American citizens. We did not create this plight going on today. We are just scraping by to survive and take care of our own. The more wealth that stays at the top and the more it keeps getting recycled back to the top only this viscious cycle will continue and continue for years with more and more people hitting the bottom. Now if you can just close your eyes and go on your merry way then I call you a traitor. We are either here in this country together to help each other or we are out for ourselves only. And if that’s the case…I hope most people will be able to defend themselves when the revolution begins. There is no choice but to revolt for fairer wages and to be employed again. If that means we force the businesses to repatriat their businesses back to america or the global corp can go live elsewhere, so be it. I don’t regret that I’ve worked hard my whole life and now have to survive on measley unemployment. But until businesses quit hording all the financial wealth in America, then yes you will have to help out the rest of us who never profited at such a high pay scale over the past 40 yrs. Our own retirement dollars were systematically robbed from us throught the bankers and now our jobs are robbed from most taxpayers by barons of wealth. So yes…you need to pay and so does our congressmen through re-election after re-election until the get it right for the majority of americans.
December 8th, 2010 at 1:49 am
@David,
Even though this is an old post, I felt the need to address this.
#1 – I see Cheryl also believes in Socialism or Communism way of doing things. I guess all that suffering through famine and tyranny under Socialist/Communist regimes we have not learned.
#2 – The economy is not about math, it’s about growth and that can only be done through businesses. Let’s go through an example.
Bill Gates makes $1,000. So, with the government acquiring taxes at a rate of 35%, they would make $350. Say the government raises taxes to a rate of 60%, they make a whooping $600.
Now, let’s say Microsoft creates 4 people who make a $250 a year.
At a rate of $250 @ 35%, the government would make a total of $650 and we know that Microsoft created far more moneymakers that just four.
For the government to do this, they must take it from the taxpayer. Bill doesn’t need anything from the government.
December 8th, 2010 at 5:59 am
This old post was about a bill providing loans and tax cuts to small businesses that was supported by Democrats and the Chamber of Commerce but opposed by Republicans. How are tax cuts Socialism or Communism?