Democrats will use this for 2012 elections

[Jarhead]

You mean Democrats are going to try to divide people and stir up hatred and greed against the so called wealthy? Say it isn't so!

I think you are being overly optimistic for a recovery. We are entering a period of inflation right now. I dont think the economy can ignore that. Nor do I think it will ignore the fact that Democrats primited to let taxes rise before the new year. That is going to seriously injure the economy even more.

As it is, people have been taking profits this year to avoid taxation at the higher rate next year. So this years numbers are going to be higher than they actually are. While next year... it's going to look ugly.

And don't forget all the other factors going on. European economies are struggling and there are riots in several countries. We are literally burning through our food supply to create ethanol because for some reason we aren't allowed to drill for oil, dig for coal, or build nuclear facilities. And we are spending more than we have to the point where tax revenues may barely cover interests rates soon.

If you expect to see a recovery, then you really need to explain how we aren't hurt by the things I just mentioned. Cause you can deny it all you want, but these are real issues that you can't just ignore.

I expect to see riots in the street before we see a recovery. And that's pretty darn sad.

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

Actually, the "hoarding" as you so eloquently put it can easily be characterized as "preparing for tougher times ahead"...

Me? I have not grown my business, but I am doing my best to save now as I do not know what to expect with cap and trade on the table, healthcare going up and possible tax increases.

I will not apologize for being successful....but my success allwed me a nice lifestyle and all indications are that I will not only be losingt that lifestyle, but quite possibly be put in a position to not be able to carry the cost to continue to earn a living base don this extended economic crisis...

So am I greedy for saving for tougher times as opposed to expanding my business and take the chance?

 

[McDowell's]

You've got it backasswards. Republicans say tax increases will inhibit growth.

I wish the Dimocrats good luck though with their stategery.

Hell, who needs LUCK, when it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that tax-increases CAN initiate growth??!!!!

​

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

 

[Two Thumbs]

But of course they will. The are the champions at using CLASS WARFARE.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.....unlike "conservatives".

​

Very unlike conservatives.

glad to see you can be taught.

Next week we will work on family values and what they actually are.

 

[McDowell's]

You mean Democrats are going to try to divide people and stir up hatred and greed against the so called wealthy? Say it isn't so!

I think you are being overly optimistic for a recovery. We are entering a period of inflation right now. I dont think the economy can ignore that. Nor do I think it will ignore the fact that Democrats primited to let taxes rise before the new year. That is going to seriously injure the economy even more.

As it is, people have been taking profits this year to avoid taxation at the higher rate next year. So this years numbers are going to be higher than they actually are. While next year... it's going to look ugly.

And don't forget all the other factors going on. European economies are struggling and there are riots in several countries. We are literally burning through our food supply to create ethanol because for some reason we aren't allowed to drill for oil, dig for coal, or build nuclear facilities. And we are spending more than we have to the point where tax revenues may barely cover interests rates soon.

If you expect to see a recovery, then you really need to explain how we aren't hurt by the things I just mentioned. Cause you can deny it all you want, but these are real issues that you can't just ignore.

I expect to see riots in the street before we see a recovery. And that's pretty darn sad.

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

People in the public sector do the exact same thing. They direct tax money to best serve their personal interests all the time. Where have you been the past 200 years?

 

[Jarhead]

Because it exists. It isn't some wild theory. In the United States, the richest 1% of households owns 38 percent of all wealth.

Yet they have no more rights and liberties than anyone else who is an American citizen.

I hope you havent forgotten that.

Excuse me? I sure would like to have all the tax credits they can take off their 1040's. How any millionnaires do you think actually PAY 35%?

You misunderstood my point.

You, too, have the right to those write offs and tax credits....you may not earn the income to enjoy them, but if you did, you would have the same right.

On the flip side, the poor and I have an equal right to food stamps....but right now, knock wood, I am not at the income level to allow me to collect them.

My neighbor got a grant from the government to take a medical billing course for free...My wife looked into it for herself and it would have cost her over 2800 based on my income.

Boith had the same right....but only one had the household income to allow for it.

 

[Two Thumbs]

You've got it backasswards. Republicans say tax increases will inhibit growth.

I wish the Dimocrats good luck though with their stategery.

Hell, who needs LUCK, when it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that tax-increases CAN initiate growth??!!!!

​

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

clinton cut the capital gains tax and increased revenue, Bush cut it even more and further increased revenue.

 

[Jarhead]

You've got it backasswards. Republicans say tax increases will inhibit growth.

I wish the Dimocrats good luck though with their stategery.

Hell, who needs LUCK, when it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that tax-increases CAN initiate growth??!!!!

​

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

AND the dot com bubble thgat Clinton rode burst in GWB's lap...

Intersting how many people forgot about, or opted to ignore that.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Hell, who needs LUCK, when it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that tax-increases CAN initiate growth??!!!!

​

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

AND the dot com bubble thgat Clinton rode burst in GWB's lap...

Intersting how many people forgot about, or opted to ignore that.

Are you saying that clinton, the most angelic Pres of all times, set up 2 bubbles that failed during the next Admin?

The tech bubble and the housing bubble?

but, but, clinton was the greatest dem since Carter, how can it be that someone that had Cloward and Piven as freinds seemingly want to destroy the ecomony while he played the sax.

no, it couldn't be.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So why haven't Dems raised taxes to help the economy?

How about a $3 Trillion Stimulus?

Obama is as big a Failure as FDR.

 

[MaggieMae]

You mean Democrats are going to try to divide people and stir up hatred and greed against the so called wealthy? Say it isn't so!

I think you are being overly optimistic for a recovery. We are entering a period of inflation right now. I dont think the economy can ignore that. Nor do I think it will ignore the fact that Democrats primited to let taxes rise before the new year. That is going to seriously injure the economy even more.

As it is, people have been taking profits this year to avoid taxation at the higher rate next year. So this years numbers are going to be higher than they actually are. While next year... it's going to look ugly.

And don't forget all the other factors going on. European economies are struggling and there are riots in several countries. We are literally burning through our food supply to create ethanol because for some reason we aren't allowed to drill for oil, dig for coal, or build nuclear facilities. And we are spending more than we have to the point where tax revenues may barely cover interests rates soon.

If you expect to see a recovery, then you really need to explain how we aren't hurt by the things I just mentioned. Cause you can deny it all you want, but these are real issues that you can't just ignore.

I expect to see riots in the street before we see a recovery. And that's pretty darn sad.

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

Actually, the "hoarding" as you so eloquently put it can easily be characterized as "preparing for tougher times ahead"...

Me? I have not grown my business, but I am doing my best to save now as I do not know what to expect with cap and trade on the table, healthcare going up and possible tax increases.

I will not apologize for being successful....but my success allwed me a nice lifestyle and all indications are that I will not only be losingt that lifestyle, but quite possibly be put in a position to not be able to carry the cost to continue to earn a living base don this extended economic crisis...

So am I greedy for saving for tougher times as opposed to expanding my business and take the chance?

Cap and trade is not on the table, and won't be for at least two years, if then.

As for the hoarding, we'll see how that turns out. I see a huge backlash against businesses who have intentionally not expanded and thus responsible for the unemployment continuing.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Who do you think those unemployed folks will vote for next time around?

Plus, it isn't a matter of "saving" for that rainy day when health care kicks in. They are "saving" by investing their excess profits in overseas ventures OR buying back their own shares to prop up their own stock prices.

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash

These types of investments are compounding their hoards. It now totals in the trillions. You think that's fair?

 

[MaggieMae]

You mean Democrats are going to try to divide people and stir up hatred and greed against the so called wealthy? Say it isn't so!

I think you are being overly optimistic for a recovery. We are entering a period of inflation right now. I dont think the economy can ignore that. Nor do I think it will ignore the fact that Democrats primited to let taxes rise before the new year. That is going to seriously injure the economy even more.

As it is, people have been taking profits this year to avoid taxation at the higher rate next year. So this years numbers are going to be higher than they actually are. While next year... it's going to look ugly.

And don't forget all the other factors going on. European economies are struggling and there are riots in several countries. We are literally burning through our food supply to create ethanol because for some reason we aren't allowed to drill for oil, dig for coal, or build nuclear facilities. And we are spending more than we have to the point where tax revenues may barely cover interests rates soon.

If you expect to see a recovery, then you really need to explain how we aren't hurt by the things I just mentioned. Cause you can deny it all you want, but these are real issues that you can't just ignore.

I expect to see riots in the street before we see a recovery. And that's pretty darn sad.

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

People in the public sector do the exact same thing. They direct tax money to best serve their personal interests all the time. Where have you been the past 200 years?

Apparently I paid more attention over the last 40 years than you have. Isn't it odd that businesses didn't behave in this manner when Clinton raised that top rate to 39%?

 

[MaggieMae]

Yet they have no more rights and liberties than anyone else who is an American citizen.

I hope you havent forgotten that.

Excuse me? I sure would like to have all the tax credits they can take off their 1040's. How any millionnaires do you think actually PAY 35%?

You misunderstood my point.

You, too, have the right to those write offs and tax credits....you may not earn the income to enjoy them, but if you did, you would have the same right.

On the flip side, the poor and I have an equal right to food stamps....but right now, knock wood, I am not at the income level to allow me to collect them.

My neighbor got a grant from the government to take a medical billing course for free...My wife looked into it for herself and it would have cost her over 2800 based on my income.

Boith had the same right....but only one had the household income to allow for it.

And those stuck in the middle get the benefit of neither. So there ya go. My point about the rich complaining about raising their tax rate is completely bogus because none of them EVER actually pay the going rate. But of course the Republicans want the common folk to believe they do.

 

[MaggieMae]

Hell, who needs LUCK, when it's ALREADY BEEN PROVEN that tax-increases CAN initiate growth??!!!!

​

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

AND the dot com bubble thgat Clinton rode burst in GWB's lap...

Intersting how many people forgot about, or opted to ignore that.

Oh bull. The dotcom bubble was nothing more than a blip. The only people who lost on that one were those stupid enough to invest in every fly-by-night gimmick when they should have realized IT competition would knock them off the playing field in a New York second. The recession caused by the dotcom bubble was one of the shortest in history.

 

[Two Thumbs]

So why haven't Dems raised taxes to help the economy?

How about a $3 Trillion Stimulus?

Obama is as big a Failure as FDR.

If they did $3 Trillion they would pull some idiot out to say it wasn't enough. To justify doing it again, and again....

 

[MaggieMae]

Umm, Bill Clinton needed luck in the form of a technology explosion which created entirely new industries and many of the largest companies in the world. None of that wealth creation had anything to do with tax or monetary policy. The fact it coincided with his presidency was a matter entirely of LUCK.

AND the dot com bubble thgat Clinton rode burst in GWB's lap...

Intersting how many people forgot about, or opted to ignore that.

Are you saying that clinton, the most angelic Pres of all times, set up 2 bubbles that failed during the next Admin?

The tech bubble and the housing bubble?

but, but, clinton was the greatest dem since Carter, how can it be that someone that had Cloward and Piven as freinds seemingly want to destroy the ecomony while he played the sax.

no, it couldn't be.

He didn't set up the housing bubble either.

Get Me ReWrite! | The Big Picture

To be blameworthy, every legislative change, each regulatory failure, any corporate action had to manifest themselves in actual mathematical proof. This led me to ascertain the following 30 year sequence:

-Free market absolutism becomes the dominant intellectual thought.

-Deregulation of markets, investment houses, and banks becomes a broad goal: This led to Glass Steagall repeal, unfettering of Derivatives, Investing house leverage exemptions, and a new breed of unregulated non bank lenders.

-Legislative actions reduce or eliminate much of the regulatory oversight; SEC funding is weakened.

-Rates come down to absurd levels.

-Bond managers madly scramble for yield.

-Derivatives, non-bank lending, leverage, bank size, compensation levels all run away from prior levels.

-Wall Street securitizes whatever it can to satisfy the demand for higher yields.

-”Lend to securitize” nonbank mortgage writers sell enormous amounts of subprime loans to Wall Street for this purpose.

-To meet this huge demand, non bank lenders collapse lending standards (banks eventually follow), leading to a credit bubble.

-The Fed approves of this “innovation,” ignores risks.

-Housing booms . . . then busts

-Credit freezes, the markets collapse, a new recession begins.

You will note that the CRA is not part of this sequence. I could find no evidence that they were a cause or even a minor factor. If they were, the housing bubbles would not have been in California or S. Florida or Las Vegas or Arizona — Harlem and South Philly and parts of Chicago and Washington DC would have been the focus of RE bubbles.

 

[McDowell's]

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

People in the public sector do the exact same thing. They direct tax money to best serve their personal interests all the time. Where have you been the past 200 years?

Apparently I paid more attention over the last 40 years than you have. Isn't it odd that businesses didn't behave in this manner when Clinton raised that top rate to 39%?

No, it's odd that you don't know a fundamental business practice is to defer recognition of profits for tax purposes as long as possible. The only exception to that is when a significant tax hike is expected to occur in the next year and then the practice is to recognize revenue sooner. It's been that way since the dawn of time. Clinton was not a magical exception, unless you're a dumbass who doesn't know any better.

And you still didn't address the fact that the PUBLIC sector does the EXACT same thing with the money the handle for the public good. Just because a person participates in government, they do not magically become a better person.

 

[Jarhead]

That alone says volumes. Conservatives want the private sector to have more control over the economy, yet the greedy bastards do nothing but hoard their profits rather than expanding their businesses to benefit the overall economy.

Actually, the "hoarding" as you so eloquently put it can easily be characterized as "preparing for tougher times ahead"...

Me? I have not grown my business, but I am doing my best to save now as I do not know what to expect with cap and trade on the table, healthcare going up and possible tax increases.

I will not apologize for being successful....but my success allwed me a nice lifestyle and all indications are that I will not only be losingt that lifestyle, but quite possibly be put in a position to not be able to carry the cost to continue to earn a living base don this extended economic crisis...

So am I greedy for saving for tougher times as opposed to expanding my business and take the chance?

Cap and trade is not on the table, and won't be for at least two years, if then.

As for the hoarding, we'll see how that turns out. I see a huge backlash against businesses who have intentionally not expanded and thus responsible for the unemployment continuing.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Who do you think those unemployed folks will vote for next time around?

Plus, it isn't a matter of "saving" for that rainy day when health care kicks in. They are "saving" by investing their excess profits in overseas ventures OR buying back their own shares to prop up their own stock prices.

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash

These types of investments are compounding their hoards. It now totals in the trillions. You think that's fair?

You make it sound like the rich are all CEO's of humongous companies.

Sure, there are a select few that game the game for their own greed. Likewise, there are those in the ranks of "the poor" that also game the game and live off the fat of the land without a care in the world of giving back and trying to do for themselves.

But not all of "the rich" do as you calim. To the contrary, most of them dont.

I am not interested in debating talking points. Ypou want to debate reality, I am fine with that.

Here is reality....

I am a 5%er...I make a nice living. I work hard. I employ people...not becuase I am a good guy, but becuase I wanted my business to make me money. I pay them well. I did not lay off. During this recession, I made very little....and yes, I have access to cash, to hire more, but I dont know what the future will bring, so I will not go into debt to expand my company and then have all of these new taxes hit me and health carte to take affect and have no where to turn..

So the little I make now, I put away.....

And I am pretty much like the majority of the "rich" you so vilify.

And by the way.....the Clinton "dot com" recession you mentioned that was the shortest in history? It was also the one that the government did not try to control. Wonder if maybe THAT had anything to do with it?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Spot on.. had we not funneled trillions into God-only-knows-what this go around and played God withe everything else, we'd probably being doing very well right now.

 

[Common Sense]

Actually, the "hoarding" as you so eloquently put it can easily be characterized as "preparing for tougher times ahead"...

Me? I have not grown my business, but I am doing my best to save now as I do not know what to expect with cap and trade on the table, healthcare going up and possible tax increases.

I will not apologize for being successful....but my success allwed me a nice lifestyle and all indications are that I will not only be losingt that lifestyle, but quite possibly be put in a position to not be able to carry the cost to continue to earn a living base don this extended economic crisis...

So am I greedy for saving for tougher times as opposed to expanding my business and take the chance?

Cap and trade is not on the table, and won't be for at least two years, if then.

As for the hoarding, we'll see how that turns out. I see a huge backlash against businesses who have intentionally not expanded and thus responsible for the unemployment continuing.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Who do you think those unemployed folks will vote for next time around?

Plus, it isn't a matter of "saving" for that rainy day when health care kicks in. They are "saving" by investing their excess profits in overseas ventures OR buying back their own shares to prop up their own stock prices.

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash

These types of investments are compounding their hoards. It now totals in the trillions. You think that's fair?

You make it sound like the rich are all CEO's of humongous companies.

Sure, there are a select few that game the game for their own greed. Likewise, there are those in the ranks of "the poor" that also game the game and live off the fat of the land without a care in the world of giving back and trying to do for themselves.

But not all of "the rich" do as you calim. To the contrary, most of them dont.

I am not interested in debating talking points. Ypou want to debate reality, I am fine with that.

Here is reality....

I am a 5%er...I make a nice living. I work hard. I employ people...not becuase I am a good guy, but becuase I wanted my business to make me money. I pay them well. I did not lay off. During this recession, I made very little....and yes, I have access to cash, to hire more, but I dont know what the future will bring, so I will not go into debt to expand my company and then have all of these new taxes hit me and health carte to take affect and have no where to turn..

So the little I make now, I
put away.....

And I am pretty much like the majority of the "rich" you so vilify.

And by the way.....the Clinton "dot com" recession you mentioned that was the shortest in history? It was also the one that the government did not try to control. Wonder if maybe THAT had anything to do with it?

honest question here, does your business qualify to be a small business under the government definition?
(ie in terms of industry, revenue and employee size?)

i actually applaud you for running a successful business and putting so much emphasis on your employees rather than solely the bottom line. I do believe tho that you are in the minority of business owners in that you took a dip in profits rather than lay people off. and if taxes do get raised on the top earners you may be one of the actual few are at a disadvantage. but remember, you still receive the cut on the first $250k you make, so its only anything above that, that will be taxes at the higher rate.

Barney Frank said this yesterday on Parker Spitzer:

"FRANK: ......but we want to make it clear that we don't think they should have the vote so that everybody gets the full reduction, especially since, by the way, after we voted for this under Bill Clinton, as I did, and we had predictions on the 39 percent top rate would cause economic disaster. Instead, we had the best economic period in a long time. Maybe not because of that -- but at the very least, in spite of it. So, the answer is, yes, I understand the point that $250,000 might be too low and there would be people willing to go higher than $250,000. But what we did say today is, you know, you don't take the top of and give people making hundreds and hundreds of thousands and think -- remember, if you're making $500,000 a year, the total increase tax from what we want is $7,500 because it's 3 percent on $100,000 -- $250,000. It's less than that."


so 3% on anything over $250k is not a huge hit.

in real numbers:

Income - $300,000
Increase in Taxes - $1,500

Income - $400,000
Increase in Taxes - $ $4,500

Income - $500,000
Increase in Taxes - $7,500


is that really a sticking point at those incomes?

 

[Jarhead]

Cap and trade is not on the table, and won't be for at least two years, if then.

As for the hoarding, we'll see how that turns out. I see a huge backlash against businesses who have intentionally not expanded and thus responsible for the unemployment continuing.

More Layoffs, Bigger Payoffs: CEOs Who Cut More Jobs Got Paid 42% More Money in 2009 - DailyFinance

Who do you think those unemployed folks will vote for next time around?

Plus, it isn't a matter of "saving" for that rainy day when health care kicks in. They are "saving" by investing their excess profits in overseas ventures OR buying back their own shares to prop up their own stock prices.

U.S. companies buy back stock in droves as they hold record levels of cash

These types of investments are compounding their hoards. It now totals in the trillions. You think that's fair?

You make it sound like the rich are all CEO's of humongous companies.

Sure, there are a select few that game the game for their own greed. Likewise, there are those in the ranks of "the poor" that also game the game and live off the fat of the land without a care in the world of giving back and trying to do for themselves.

But not all of "the rich" do as you calim. To the contrary, most of them dont.

I am not interested in debating talking points. Ypou want to debate reality, I am fine with that.

Here is reality....

I am a 5%er...I make a nice living. I work hard. I employ people...not becuase I am a good guy, but becuase I wanted my business to make me money. I pay them well. I did not lay off. During this recession, I made very little....and yes, I have access to cash, to hire more, but I dont know what the future will bring, so I will not go into debt to expand my company and then have all of these new taxes hit me and health carte to take affect and have no where to turn..

So the little I make now, I
put away.....

And I am pretty much like the majority of the "rich" you so vilify.

And by the way.....the Clinton "dot com" recession you mentioned that was the shortest in history? It was also the one that the government did not try to control. Wonder if maybe THAT had anything to do with it?

honest question here, does your business qualify to be a small business under the government definition?
(ie in terms of industry, revenue and employee size?)

i actually applaud you for running a successful business and putting so much emphasis on your employees rather than solely the bottom line. I do believe tho that you are in the minority of business owners in that you took a dip in profits rather than lay people off. and if taxes do get raised on the top earners you may be one of the actual few are at a disadvantage. but remember, you still receive the cut on the first $250k you make, so its only anything above that, that will be taxes at the higher rate.

Barney Frank said this yesterday on Parker Spitzer:

"FRANK: ......but we want to make it clear that we don't think they should have the vote so that everybody gets the full reduction, especially since, by the way, after we voted for this under Bill Clinton, as I did, and we had predictions on the 39 percent top rate would cause economic disaster. Instead, we had the best economic period in a long time. Maybe not because of that -- but at the very least, in spite of it. So, the answer is, yes, I understand the point that $250,000 might be too low and there would be people willing to go higher than $250,000. But what we did say today is, you know, you don't take the top of and give people making hundreds and hundreds of thousands and think -- remember, if you're making $500,000 a year, the total increase tax from what we want is $7,500 because it's 3 percent on $100,000 -- $250,000. It's less than that."


so 3% on anything over $250k is not a huge hit.

in real numbers:

Income - $300,000
Increase in Taxes - $1,500

Income - $400,000
Increase in Taxes - $ $4,500

Income - $500,000
Increase in Taxes - $7,500


is that really a sticking point at those incomes?

First of all.....I did not lay off as my business will need the talent I have IF things get better.
Secondly.....yes, I am the "small business" by definition. I am a NYS (s) Corp. My net revenue (net of payroll) far exceeds 250K.

Secondly.....JUST the tax increase is not what spooks us. It is the increase in our healthcare costs that has yet to be determnined; our increase in payroll taxes; our increase in unemployment matching; our POSSIBLE cap and trade costs that is being dangled in front of our faces...

Our operating costs are nearly impossible to forecast at this point for the next two years. The cost to hire is undeterminable. So we are all pretty much sitting around and waiting for congress to decide what is and what is not going to happen.

It is irresponsible to try to grow a business if you can not properly forecast.