PDA

View Full Version : The House just passed their tax cut bill



Qtec
12-03-2010, 01:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The House just passed their tax cut bill, 234-188. It extends tax cuts for singles making $200,000; married couples earning $250,000, makes small business tax credits permanent, <u>and repeals lower tax rates for high-income taxpayers.</u> Now it will head to the Senate, where the real debate will begin over tax rates for the wealthy. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 'Chicken crap' by the numbers


Soon-to-be-House Speaker John Boehner is not happy to see the House Democrats pushing a bill that includes only the tax cuts for income under $250,000. Im trying to catch my breath so I dont refer to this maneuver going on today as chicken crap, all right?

There are 238,781 households in John Boehner's district. There are 2,824 of them with an income above $200,000. That's 1.1 percent. And that 1.1 percent is too large, as many of those people make between $200,000 and $250,000, and so every dollar of their income will be eligible for the tax cuts the Democrats are pushing.

So in all likelihood, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>what separates a tax cut bill that's "chicken crap" from a tax cut bill that's great is its treatment of the richest 1 percent of households in Boehner's district.</span> And $700 billion slapped right onto the deficit. </div></div>


They are holding out for the richest 1%. Is there any doubt about who they work for?



Q

LWW
12-03-2010, 04:35 AM
They are acting like they are working for the American people.

The democrooks are acting like they are looking out for the top 1% of wealth owners in America ... the ones who pay no income tax at all being that they are not employees but investors.

Punishing high wage earners ... payers of income taxes ... slows the creation of new business and the expansion of existing small businesses. By stifling the new money entrepreneur, the old money wealthy are protected from further competition by the status quo being frozen in place.

By stifling new small business creation/expansion job creation is muffled and a larger and more permanent underclass is created and entrenched.

This leads to further dependence by the masses on the state for their survival. This leads to fear of standing up to the ever expanding state. This, 100% of the time, ends in tyranny.

This is yet another example of the regime promoting a fascist economy and stopping a free market.

Please learn some basic economic facts.

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are acting like they are working for the American people. </div></div>

I would call 95%/97% a majority.

Q

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:28 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The democrooks are acting like they are <span style='font-size: 14pt'>looking out for the top 1% of wealth owners in America </span> </div></div>????????????????

No they are not. What drugs are you on?

Q

LWW
12-03-2010, 06:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They are acting like they are working for the American people. </div></div>

I would call 95%/97% a majority.

Q </div></div>

That's why they are acting in the best interests of the majority.

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Punishing high wage earners ... payers of income taxes ... slows the creation of new business and the expansion of existing small businesses. By stifling the new money entrepreneur, the old money wealthy are protected from further competition by the status quo being frozen in place </div></div>

BS....PROVE IT.

Q...Clinton raised taxes on the top earners and the economy flourished. He also controlled spending, unlike Bush or Reagan. Handing Rush Limbaugh an extra 2.5 M a year is not going to create jobs.

LWW
12-03-2010, 06:31 AM
BTW ... how do you rationalize that a bill which leaves tax rates the same for some while raising them for others and lowering them for nobody is a "TAX CUT BILL" my friend?

LWW

Qtec
12-03-2010, 06:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... how do you rationalize that a bill which leaves tax rates the same for some while raising them for others and lowering them for nobody is a "TAX CUT BILL" my friend?

LWW </div></div>

Very simply, listen.

At the moment, the US is in dire straits. The only way out is to stimulate growth and increase employment.
Before you can create jobs there has to be demand. If you are going to give money away you want to give the money to those who will spend it.
Once demand increases, THEN you give incentives/ tax breaks to those who want to invest in a new businesses to fill this demand and create jobs.

Q

Stretch
12-03-2010, 07:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... how do you rationalize that a bill which leaves tax rates the same for some while raising them for others and lowering them for nobody is a "TAX CUT BILL" my friend?

LWW </div></div>

Very simply, listen.

At the moment, the US is in dire straits. The only way out is to stimulate growth and increase employment.
Before you can create jobs there has to be demand. If you are going to give money away you want to give the money to those who will spend it.
Once demand increases, THEN you give incentives/ tax breaks to those who want to invest in a new businesses to fill this demand and create jobs.

Q

</div></div>

Q, have you ever thought of Politics as a career? You have a great Knack of navigating thorny issues and making them clear for the average joe. Nicely done. St.

Qtec
12-03-2010, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Q, have you ever thought of Politics as a career? You have a great Knack of navigating thorny issues and making them clear for the average joe. Nicely done. St. </div></div>

Nah. I just get lucky now and again. A fleeting glimpse of clarity you might call it. My girlfriend still thinks I'm a moron!

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

....and when I challenge her on it- had a few beers- somehow she always convinces me that she's right! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif She is 10 times smarter than I am.

Its true....she speaks 5 languages fluently, English, German Dutch, French and Spanish. She understands Japanese and certain Hindi [ India dialects], Portuguese etc.
She used to play chess as a kid at a very high level. She ran away from home when she was six years old and made her way from Rotterdam to her Grandmothers house in the south of France!

What she sees in me I don't know. Sometimes you get lucky.

Thanks for the support.

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 08:12 AM
Q...yes, the house passed a bill that they KNOW has absolutely NOT CHANCE of getting through the senate. That is the "chicken crap" part of it. It is nothing but political posturing. I can assure you that in the next campaign season, they will be using this vote for more of their mud slinging. They new they could vote for it, because it would never become law.

Now try and explain how a bill that selectively raises taxes on some people, but not others could be considered "fair". Who are they to decide who should be punished with additional taxes, and who shouldn't?

The real news is what is going on with the back room deals. The Bush tax cuts will probably be extended, at least temporarily, and unemployment benefits will probably be extended at the same time. That is the deal that will ultimately reach the president's desk.

Steve

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are 238,781 households in John Boehner's district. There are 2,824 of them with an income above $200,000. That's 1.1 percent. And that 1.1 percent is too large, as many of those people make between $200,000 and $250,000, and so every dollar of their income will be eligible for the tax cuts the Democrats are pushing.

</div></div>Exactly. Which is showing you that the people they are hurting are the small business owners and the "not so rich". The people you really want to target are the uber-wealthy which are NOT the people in teh 200 to 250k range. When I talk rich I am referring to wealth. People who make 200 to 250k can be wealthy but the majority of them are not. They are uber-consumers and spend most of the money they make. The overwhelmiing majority of people in the 200-250k range are doctors, lawyers, and salesman. These are not the big wig corporate CEOs that you all seem to hate so much. These people, the doctors/lawyers/salesmen, on average do not increase their wealth because their jobs don't bode well for that type of behaviour. They need their expensive clothes, cars, club memeberships, etc to keep up their expected lifestyle. By doing this they are not building wealth and are actually paying a higher percentage of their income in sales tax than do the real rich people. The ones you are targeting are the ones that keep this country moving forward.

Why do you guys refuse to study the reason California is in the situation it is in?

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:43 AM
Probably because the issue is extending the Bush tax cuts.

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:44 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are going to give money away you want to give the money to those who will spend it.
</div></div>Once again, the government does not GIVE money away. They are only allowing you to KEEP your money. Why can't you see the difference?

eg8r

eg8r
12-03-2010, 08:45 AM
Are you kidding. With his past he would never get elected. Working in an illegal casino to skate past taxes will get him a job in Obama's administration though. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 09:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">These people, the doctors/lawyers/salesmen, on average do not increase their wealth because their jobs don't bode well for that type of behaviour. </div></div>

They don't create jobs, either. doctors, and lawyers, maintain the same staff level. It doen not matter how many are paying them for their services, they still have the same number of people working for them...

Salesmen? Do they go into busniess, and hire people? No, they work for the top CEO's, or the owners of small businesses...

Most small business owners are not making $250,000 a year, in taxable income, period.

If the statistics during the Bush Administration, don't educate you on the results of tax cuts for the top two percent, what will? Worst job creation in history!

If the top two percent, paid their taxes, like te Middle Class does, we would not be in deep debt.

They don't! Why would Warren Buffet, Gates, and others, lie?
Their extra money goes into tax exempt investments, how much of it outside of America. That does nothing to create jobs.

Do you think all of those Wall street CEO's took their unprecedented bonus profits, and decided to hire more workers in their firms???

Pahleeeze! They laid people off, and stuffed their pockets!

The whole economy cannot rely on spending for luxury items, by a few wealthy, while massive numbers of the others, have nothing left over to spend..

Explain why every country which experiences the vast void which we have now between the percentage of wealth, owned by the walthy top two percent continues to grow, while all the rest loose ground...do you realize what they always leads to in the long run??? Just exactly what we've seen since Bush! More for the greddy top, and less for all of the rest. If their tax cuts were leading to more jobs, why did we end up in this mess?

The top gets the whole country into trouble, gouging everyo9ne at every pass, including their home values, and savings and invesments, and the rest bails them out, while their wealth grows at never before seen rates, then Republicans decide to reduce the budget, by throwing the unemployed out the window? While going further into debt, to give MORE to the top, and telling the rest, once again, they have to e taxed high, to pay more money, and take on more debts, for the benefit of the top?

What a crock! Boehner is the chicken ****! Republiocans are the Chicken ****s. they feel fine, about throwing the unemployed out on the street, but don't expect them to raise taxes for the Kings and Queens, who slipped out with their pockets filled with the money from all of the rest!

Repulsive.
G.

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 09:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Q, have you ever thought of Politics as a career? You have a great Knack of navigating thorny issues and making them clear for the average joe. Nicely done. St. </div></div>

Nah. I just get lucky now and again. A fleeting glimpse of clarity you might call it. My girlfriend still thinks I'm a moron!

Q /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

....and when I challenge her on it- had a few beers- somehow she always convinces me that she's right! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif She is 10 times smarter than I am.

Its true....she speaks 5 languages fluently, English, German Dutch, French and Spanish. She understands Japanese and certain Hindi [ India dialects], Portuguese etc.
She used to play chess as a kid at a very high level. She ran away from home when she was six years old and made her way from Rotterdam to her Grandmothers house in the south of France!

What she sees in me I don't know. Sometimes you get lucky.

Thanks for the support. </div></div>

I'd say it's more like displaying consistant clarity, Q. No luck involved.

G.

Qtec
12-03-2010, 09:25 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you are going to give money away you want to give the money to those who will spend it.
</div></div>Once again, the government does not GIVE money away. They are only allowing you to KEEP your money. Why can't you see the difference?

eg8r </div></div>

When you were in Vegas.

You put your 5$ on the BJ box and the cards are dealt, is it still your money?

Q

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 10:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

Most small business owners are not making $250,000 a year, in taxable income, period.

<span style="color: #FF0000">Actually, most people in that income range are the small business owners. And most small business owners put profits back into those businesses, which employ the majority of workers</span>.

If the top two percent, paid their taxes, like te Middle Class does, we would not be in deep debt.

They don't! Why would Warren Buffet, Gates, and others, lie?
Their extra money goes into tax exempt investments, how much of it outside of America. That does nothing to create jobs.

G. </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">Do you have a 401K or an IRA? Do you invest in stocks or bonds? Do you claim any deductions when you do your taxes? How are you any different than those you villify&lt; other than the degree to which you do it?

Steve </span>

eg8r
12-03-2010, 10:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They don't create jobs, either. doctors, and lawyers, maintain the same staff level. It doen not matter how many are paying them for their services, they still have the same number of people working for them...

</div></div>Sorry but you are wrong. The office my wife works for increased their staff by 5 people this year. That means they are seeing quite a bit more patients than they used to. Could that happen if they start getting taxed at higher rates and choose to not see as many patients? Nope, they will be laying people off.

Lawyers that are busy also increase their staff as the workload increases. Dry cleaners, restaurants, etc all employ more than 50% of our workers in this country and you don't care about a single one of them because your greediness keeps wanting more and more.

You like to keep referring back to greedy CEOs and wall street but they don't employee as many as the small business owners in this country they are the minority for sure.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 11:13 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They don't create jobs, either. doctors, and lawyers, maintain the same staff level. It does not matter how many are paying them for their services, they still have the same number of people working for them...

</div></div>Sorry but you are wrong. The office my wife works for increased their staff by 5 people this year. That means they are seeing quite a bit more patients than they used to. Could that happen if they start getting taxed at higher rates and choose to not see as many patients? Nope, they will be laying people off.

<span style="color: #CC0000">I am speaking in general terms, Ed. You can't expect to take a broad stand, just by what is going on in one office.

Generally speaking, most attorneys lay more hours on the employees they already have.

Same thing with a doctor's office.

If they hire more people, how many would you think a docrtor or lawyer would hire? One? Two? suffice it to say, not many.</span>

Lawyers that are busy also increase their staff as the workload increases. Dry cleaners, restaurants, etc all employ more than 50% of our workers in this country and you don't care about a single one of them because your greediness keeps wanting more and more.

<span style="color: #990000">Ok, if you are going to go back to personal insults, the conversation will be over, all conersation between us will end. </span>

<span style="color: #CC0000">Not rational, IMO, to compare Dry Cleaners, and Restaurants, to doctors and Lawyers.

Most dry cleaners only employ two people, one for day, and one for night, unloess they deliver, in which case they have usually one driver. They almost all farm out the actual cleaning of the clothes, these days, so more business does not translate to more employees. One reason why it is such a good business, and secondly, a lot of their intake, is in cash. don't tell me about the Cleaning business, we have had three of them in the family.

Same thing with Law office, two of those, owned and operated by close family members, both of which I have worked in.

One doctor in the family, had a very busy practice, never employed more that three employees in thrity five years.

As I said, demand for goods and services, by the masses, increase hiring, not tax cuts.

We had tax cuts, we lost jobs. The current Democratic bill, includes tax cuts for small businesses, wjho hire more employees, anyway. So the entire point, is moot.

End of story.</span>

You like to keep referring back to greedy CEOs and wall street but they don't employee as many as the small business owners in this country they are the minority for sure.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000">Exactly my original point. Why give them tax cuts in the first place? None of the millionaires, and billionaires pay their dedicated percentage, anyway. AND, the vast majority do not create any jobs to speak of, with tax savings, in the first place.

Small business owners are not in the top two percent of tax payers!!!! </span>

eg8r
12-03-2010, 11:23 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am speaking in general terms, Ed. You can't expect to take a broad stand, just by what is going on in one office.

</div></div>It was an example of what is going currently. As a company, no matter type of company, increases its workload it has to hire employees. Her office is one example. Did you need to see 2, 3, 100?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Generally speaking, most attorneys lay more hours on the employees they already have.

Same thing with a doctor's office.

</div></div>Same with business offices, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. That only holds true until the workload is too much and they are forced to hire more people. Small businesses do this much quicker than huge corporations.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, if you are going to go back to personal insults, the conversation will be over, all conersation between us will end.

</div></div>Call how you want, I don't take ultimatums from you and I don't consider it a priveledge to have a discussion with you. If you don't think that you going back to the well over and over asking for more and more money without making any changes on your end other than spend more is being greedy then that is your problem not mine. As you have seen in my posts to the moderator and to others on this board, I call it how I see it. It is up to you to decide if you have thick enough skin to continue the discussion.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not rational, IMO, to compare Dry Cleaners, and Restaurants, to doctors and Lawyers.

Most dry cleaners only employ two people, oone for day, and one for night. They almost all farm out the actual cleaning of the clothes.

</div></div>Who cares who does the actual cleaning? Most lawyers farm out all the research to their aides. As the dry cleaning picks up more and more people are needed to handle the demand. If the front desk is too busy they hire an additional person. If they are bringing in more clothes they buy an additional van and hire an additional person to drive. It all keeps adding up and more and more jobs are added along the way.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said, demand for goods and services, increase hiring, not tax cuts. We had tax cuts, we lost jobs.</div></div>You are implying the tax cuts caused the jobs to go away. Are you able to support this with evidence?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly my original point. Why give them tax cuts in the first place?</div></div>The greedy CEO's and wall street are not in the 200 to 250k bracket. They are much higher and you know that. Also they are the minority of people being affected by the increase on 250k and up. You are wanting to kill everyone to get back at a handful.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 12:02 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am speaking in general terms, Ed. You can't expect to take a broad stand, just by what is going on in one office.

</div></div>It was an example of what is going currently. As a company, no matter type of company, increases its workload it has to hire employees. Her office is one example. Did you need to see 2, 3, 100?

<span style="color: #CC0000">I can't comment on HER office. I don't know if it is a clinic, with a large number of doctors, or one office, private practice, one doctor, but I do think you can't take only one office, as use one office as a sole indicator of all offices. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Generally speaking, most attorneys lay more hours on the employees they already have.

Same thing with a doctor's office.

</div></div>Same with business offices, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. That only holds true until the workload is too much and they are forced to hire more people. Small businesses do this much quicker than huge corporations.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">, if you are going to go back to personal insults, the conversation will be over, all conersation between us will end.

</div></div>Call how you want, I don't take ultimatums from you and I don't consider it a priveledge to have a discussion with you. If you don't think that you going back to the well over and over asking for more and more money without making any changes on your end other than spend more is being greedy then that is your problem not mine.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> If you don't think that you going back to the well over and over asking for more and more money without making any changes on your end other than spend more is being greedy then that is your problem not mine. </div></div>

<span style="color: #CC0000"> No clue as to what you are talking about, just that you are again getting personal. You have no clue what I personally do, nor will you ever have. Hence, don't aim nasty statement, or make ugly accusations, about my life, of which you have no knowledge.</span>




As you have seen in my posts to the moderator and to others on this board, I call it how I see it. It is up to you to decide if you have thick enough skin to continue the discussion.

<span style="color: #990000">I surely don't need your input to know what I can and can't do, Ed. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Not rational, IMO, to compare Dry Cleaners, and Restaurants, to doctors and Lawyers.

Most dry cleaners only employ two people, one for day, and one for night. They almost all farm out the actual cleaning of the clothes.

</div></div>Who cares who does the actual cleaning? Most lawyers farm out all the research to their aides. As the dry cleaning picks up more and more people are needed to handle the demand. If the front desk is too busy they hire an additional person. If they are bringing in more clothes they buy an additional van and hire an additional person to drive. It all keeps adding up and more and more jobs are added along the way.

<span style="color: #990000">You have no clue what you're talking about. No small business dry cleaning operation hs more than two employees, on a shift. Very few are open after seven or eight in the evening. If they have more than one driver, or more than three or four front desk employees, they aren't a small dry cleaning business anyway. why do you insist to lump millionaires and billionaires in with small businesses, in the first place.

I am against tax cuts for the top two percent. Millionaires and billionairees, for the most part.

AGain, the Democratic Bilol includes tax cuts for small businesses, and for job creation. Noe of your point are even relevent. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said, demand for goods and services, increase hiring, not tax cuts. We had tax cuts, we lost jobs.</div></div>You are implying the tax cuts caused the jobs to go away. Are you able to support this with evidence?

<span style="color: #990000">You are twisting what I wrote, to suit yourself, as is the general posting style of the right on this forum.

I said, tax cuts for the top two percent, do not add jobs, period. </span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Exactly my original point. Why give them tax cuts in the first place?</div></div>The greedy CEO's and wall street are not in the 200 to 250k bracket. They are much higher and you know that. Also they are the minority of people being affected by the increase on 250k and up. You are wanting to kill everyone to get back at a handful.

eg8r </div></div>

<span style="color: #990000"> You are denying the documentation on the amount of job creation, produced by people making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, as a result of tax cuts.

As I said, I'm done with discussing the issue, since the bill includes additional tax cuts for small business when they produce more jobs....

It makes no sense to give tax cuts to people who do not use them for hiring more people.

If tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't have seen the worst job production under Bush, than ever before...horrible record, on job Creation.

Clinto raised taxes, cut spending, created loads more jobs, than both Bush's and Reagan, combined, AND reformed welfare, getting more low end earners off welfare than any other president in recent history, while leaving office with a surplus, and a path to total solvency.

Facts are facts.

G.

</span>

eg8r
12-03-2010, 12:48 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't comment on HER office. I don't know if it is a clinic, with a large number of doctors, or one office, private practice, one doctor, but I do think you can't take only one office, as use one office as a sole indicator of all offices.

</div></div>It isn't about her office, that was just an example. Didd you need examples of 2, 3, 100? How many examples do you need to be shown to prove to you that when the workload is increased more staff is employed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No clue as to what you are talking about, just that you are again getting personal. You have no clue what I personally do, nor will you ever have. Hence, don't aim nasty statement, or make ugly accusations, about my life, of which you have no knowledge.

</div></div>My quote was about going back to the well. With you and the rest of the libs the only time you ever think about balancing the budget or paying down debt is stealing more money. That is called going back to the well over and over.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I surely don't need your input to know what I can and can't do, Ed.
</div></div>Nope a "know-it-all" like yourself never is good at taking suggestions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No small business dry cleaning operation hs more than two employees, on a shift. Very few are open after seven or eight in the evening. If they have more than one driver, or more than three or four front desk employees, they aren't a small dry cleaning business anyway.</div></div>You are twisting the example to suit your idea of what I am talking about. I am not talking about a small dry cleaning business. I am talking about a small business that does dry cleaning. Before I continue let me know if that is still confusing you or if you intend to continue to twist what I am saying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why do you insist to lump millionaires and billionaires in with small businesses, in the first place.

</div></div>Because that is what every idiot is doing when they choose an income of 250k and up. Millionaires and billionaires do not belong in the same group as the 250k income group.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AGain, the Democratic Bilol includes tax cuts for small businesses, and for job creation. Noe of your point are even relevent.

</div></div>What about the 250k who are not small business owners? Why do they get penalized the same as Buffet and not the same as Joe America?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are twisting what I wrote, to suit yourself, as is the general posting style of the right on this forum.

I said, tax cuts for the top two percent, do not add jobs, period.

</div></div>I did not twist anything, I actually copied you so you could see what I was commenting on. Tax increases do not add jobs for those that are barely making it now and already closing down their businesses.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are denying the documentation on the amount of job creation, produced by people making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, as a result of tax cuts.

</div></div>Maybe you could provide us some data where taxing people over 250k created jobs when unemployment just rose again another .2%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes no sense to give tax cuts to people who do not use them for hiring more people.

</div></div>Other than being American. It also makes no sense in increasing taxes on these people who are already shutting their companies down and increasing unemployment another .2%. Will you not be happy until the number is an even 10%?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't have seen the worst job production under Bush, than ever before...horrible record, on job Creation.
</div></div>There you go again implying the tax cut is what caused unemployment to increase yet you have absolutely zero proof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinto raised taxes, cut spending</div></div>That is a scenario no one has ever argued against but that is absolutely, 100% NOT what Obama has done or what you have supported. You have supported a spend spend spend government with no cuts anywhere but Defense. Sorry but that does not cut it.

eg8r

Gayle in MD
12-03-2010, 12:58 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I can't comment on HER office. I don't know if it is a clinic, with a large number of doctors, or one office, private practice, one doctor, but I do think you can't take only one office, as use one office as a sole indicator of all offices.

</div></div>It isn't about her office, that was just an example. Didd you need examples of 2, 3, 100? How many examples do you need to be shown to prove to you that when the workload is increased more staff is employed?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No clue as to what you are talking about, just that you are again getting personal. You have no clue what I personally do, nor will you ever have. Hence, don't aim nasty statement, or make ugly accusations, about my life, of which you have no knowledge.

</div></div>My quote was about going back to the well. With you and the rest of the libs the only time you ever think about balancing the budget or paying down debt is stealing more money. That is called going back to the well over and over.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I surely don't need your input to know what I can and can't do, Ed.
</div></div>Nope a "know-it-all" like yourself never is good at taking suggestions.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> No small business dry cleaning operation hs more than two employees, on a shift. Very few are open after seven or eight in the evening. If they have more than one driver, or more than three or four front desk employees, they aren't a small dry cleaning business anyway.</div></div>You are twisting the example to suit your idea of what I am talking about. I am not talking about a small dry cleaning business. I am talking about a small business that does dry cleaning. Before I continue let me know if that is still confusing you or if you intend to continue to twist what I am saying.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">why do you insist to lump millionaires and billionaires in with small businesses, in the first place.

</div></div>Because that is what every idiot is doing when they choose an income of 250k and up. Millionaires and billionaires do not belong in the same group as the 250k income group.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">AGain, the Democratic Bilol includes tax cuts for small businesses, and for job creation. Noe of your point are even relevent.

</div></div>What about the 250k who are not small business owners? Why do they get penalized the same as Buffet and not the same as Joe America?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are twisting what I wrote, to suit yourself, as is the general posting style of the right on this forum.

I said, tax cuts for the top two percent, do not add jobs, period.

</div></div>I did not twist anything, I actually copied you so you could see what I was commenting on. Tax increases do not add jobs for those that are barely making it now and already closing down their businesses.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You are denying the documentation on the amount of job creation, produced by people making over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year, as a result of tax cuts.

</div></div>Maybe you could provide us some data where taxing people over 250k created jobs when unemployment just rose again another .2%.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It makes no sense to give tax cuts to people who do not use them for hiring more people.

</div></div>Other than being American. It also makes no sense in increasing taxes on these people who are already shutting their companies down and increasing unemployment another .2%. Will you not be happy until the number is an even 10%?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If tax cuts created jobs, we wouldn't have seen the worst job production under Bush, than ever before...horrible record, on job Creation.
</div></div>There you go again implying the tax cut is what caused unemployment to increase yet you have absolutely zero proof.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinto raised taxes, cut spending</div></div>That is a scenario no one has ever argued against but that is absolutely, 100% NOT what Obama has done or what you have supported. You have supported a spend spend spend government with no cuts anywhere but Defense. Sorry but that does not cut it.

eg8r

</div></div>

Last response.

We had tax cuts, since 2001, which most, including Greenspan, saw as favoring the wealthy, because the did favor the wealthy.

The result, was higher deficits.

Greater job losses

End result, worst job numbers in recent history, under the Bush tax cuts.

Tax cuts do not create jobs, period.

It is moot, anyway, as this bill incudes tax cuts for small business which create jobs.

Alan Greenspan stated, very clearly, tax cuts for the wealthy, which add to the deficit, do not pay for themselves.

Both Q., and I have posted the documentation for our opinions, in government charts from the CBO, several times.

You have not.

No documentation, end of discussion.

I see additional name calling from you, hence, now you are back ignore....

The End.

G.

pooltchr
12-03-2010, 02:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

but I do think you can't take only one office, as use one office as a sole indicator of all offices. </div></div>

But it's ok to take one corporation and use it as a sole indicator of all corporations.
And it's ok to take one CEO and use him as a sole indicator of all CEOs.
And it's ok to take one Republican and use him as a sole indicator of all Republicans.

If you know so little about business that you don't even know that when businesses grow, they hire more people, you have no business even being in this discussion.
And if you don't know the definition of a small business, or know that small businesses employ far more American workers than large corporations, you are just clueless.

Steve

LWW
12-03-2010, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW ... how do you rationalize that a bill which leaves tax rates the same for some while raising them for others and lowering them for nobody is a "TAX CUT BILL" my friend?

LWW </div></div>

Very simply, listen.

At the moment, the US is in dire straits. The only way out is to stimulate growth and increase employment.
Before you can create jobs there has to be demand. If you are going to give money away you want to give the money to those who will spend it.
Once demand increases, THEN you give incentives/ tax breaks to those who want to invest in a new businesses to fill this demand and create jobs.

Q

</div></div>

So you subscribe to the democrooks altest stupidonomics program ... that you solve UE by creating more UE?

LWW &lt;--- Unsurprised.

LWW
12-03-2010, 05:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Clinto raised taxes, cut spending</div></div>That is a scenario no one has ever argued against but that is absolutely, 100% NOT what Obama has done or what you have supported. You have supported a spend spend spend government with no cuts anywhere but Defense. Sorry but that does not cut it.

eg8r

[/quote]

The far left supports whatever the party tells them that they support ... please don't expect them to understand any of it.

LWW