Democrats will use this for 2012 elections

[Revere]

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?

Yes, the earner deserves the money than a government with a $2T budget that wants to take it away from him.

 

[Common Sense]

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?

Yes, the earner deserves the money than a government with a $2T budget that wants to take it away from him.

so you are in favor of increasing the deficit then? because that is the effective result of renewing any of the tax cuts. tax cuts for the middle class will at $2.2 trillion to the deficit, while tax cuts for those over $250,000 will add another $700 Billion. bringin the total to $2.9 trillion ove the next 10 years. all of which will have to be borrowed and added to the deficit.

so are you in favor of lower taxes and a higher deficit or higher taxes and a lower deficit?

 

[Revere]

Obama pissed $3T more into the debt hole and did not raise taxes. Now he wants someone else to pay for it.

 

[Revere]

No amount of increased revenue can keep up with Obama's spending orgies.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Avoiding taxes is hardly hoarding.

How do you expect a company to invest into new business if they cant know what Washington is going to do next?

 

[Avatar4321]

Thanks for at least admitting you're an honest greedy American.

how is it greedy to want to keep your own money?

I presume then that youll be mailing out checks to everyone on this board. After all, if you keep your money you are just greedy, right?

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Yes. Yes you are. You arent letting them take your money so they can spend it on their pet programs. Do you expec them to actually work for it? As if...

 

[Avatar4321]

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?

Cap and trade shouldnt be anywhere near the table. It should be taken out back, shot, stabbed, hung by the neck and then buried deep in the earth where it will never see the light of day. Anyone who wants to pass a law in which energy prices would necessarily skyrocket should be put in an insane assylum.

As for the rest of your response. It's their money. They can do with it as they choose. They could fill a swimming pool with it and go swimming through it for all I care. It's their money.

You need to let go of your covetous inclinations. They aren't evil because they have money. You don't know how to invest their money better than they do. If you did, you'd have your own money to do with it as you pleased.

 

[Avatar4321]

No amount of increased revenue can keep up with Obama's spending orgies.

Completely beside the point. Increasing taxes won't increase revenues. At this point it's likely to decrease them.

Its amazing how these people bitch and moan about the wealthy moving their money, the jobs, and themselves overseas, yet their solution is to make it more difficult to do business here ensuring that they continue to move their operations and wealth overseas.

I long for the day when people will start standing up for their rights and their responsibilities and not try to push it on to others because they have more money.

 

[Revere]

No amount of increased revenue can keep up with Obama's spending orgies.

Completely beside the point. Increasing taxes won't increase revenues. At this point it's likely to decrease them.

Its amazing how these people bitch and moan about the wealthy moving their money, the jobs, and themselves overseas, yet their solution is to make it more difficult to do business here ensuring that they continue to move their operations and wealth overseas.

I long for the day when people will start standing up for their rights and their responsibilities and not try to push it on to others because they have more money.

I didn't say increasing taxes will increase revenue.

 

[Jarhead]

Why is it:

When the less fiancnially secure make decisions so that they can maximize their fiancnail situation; such as taking a mortgage they can not afford...they are victims of the system...

But....

When the more wealthy make decisions to maximize their financial situation such as save and not spend on corporate growth, it is greed?

 

[Common Sense]

Obama pissed $3T more into the debt hole and did not raise taxes. Now he wants someone else to pay for it.

Bush did the same. whats your point? you still didn't answer the question.

Reagan Bush and Cheney all agreed deficits dont matter remember...

The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit

"Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus, The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion"

stop blaming Obama for all the deficit nonsense

 

[Revere]

Obama pissed $3T more into the debt hole and did not raise taxes. Now he wants someone else to pay for it.

Bush did the same. whats your point? you still didn't answer the question.

Reagan Bush and Cheney all agreed deficits dont matter remember...

The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit

"Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus, The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion"

stop blaming Obama for all the deficit nonsense

Bush's deficits never exceeded around $400B and were on the way down until 2007.

 

[Revere]

Obama doesn't give a rat's ass about debt and deficits. Nothing he has done in two years demonstrates that he does.

 

[Common Sense]

Obama pissed $3T more into the debt hole and did not raise taxes. Now he wants someone else to pay for it.

Bush did the same. whats your point? you still didn't answer the question.

Reagan Bush and Cheney all agreed deficits dont matter remember...

The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit

"Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus, The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion"

stop blaming Obama for all the deficit nonsense

Bush's deficits never exceeded around $400B and were on the way down until 2007.

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

 

[Avatar4321]

Bush did the same. whats your point? you still didn't answer the question.

Reagan Bush and Cheney all agreed deficits dont matter remember...

The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit

"Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus, The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion"

stop blaming Obama for all the deficit nonsense

Bush's deficits never exceeded around $400B and were on the way down until 2007.

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

I think "Until 2007" are the key words there.

Bush did have lower deficits the first six years in office.

 

[Revere]

Bush did the same. whats your point? you still didn't answer the question.

Reagan Bush and Cheney all agreed deficits dont matter remember...

The Progress Report: The Bush Deficit

"Bush came into office with an advantage few presidents have enjoyed -- a $230 billion surplus. But due to a $1.35 trillion tax cut in 2001, a $1.5 trillion tax cut in 2003, and a massive defense buildup through the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, Bush quickly blew through that surplus, The next president will "inherit a fiscal meltdown," Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) warned in February 2008, as the Bush administration projected a budget deficit of $400 billion. After the financial crisis emerged last fall and the ensuing bailouts, Bush's budget deficit ballooned to over $1 trillion"

stop blaming Obama for all the deficit nonsense

Bush's deficits never exceeded around $400B and were on the way down until 2007.

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

True. Deficits were on the way down until 2007.

In eight years, Obama will double Bush's debt at this pace.

And he wants Republicans to pay for it? For what?

 

[Common Sense]

Bush's deficits never exceeded around $400B and were on the way down until 2007.

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

True. Deficits were on the way down until 2007.

In eight years, Obama will double Bush's debt at this pace.

And he wants Republicans to pay for it? For what?

u just keep asking for it:

Increases in the National Debt Chart

Bush was responsible for the FY2008 budget which was the first over $1 T.

 

[Revere]

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

True. Deficits were on the way down until 2007.

In eight years, Obama will double Bush's debt at this pace.

And he wants Republicans to pay for it? For what?

u just keep asking for it:

Increases in the National Debt Chart

Bush was responsible for the FY2008 budget which was the first over $1 T.

I said his deficits were in decline until 2007, which is the year Democrats took control of Congress.

They have spent more in four years than anyone else in the history of the world.

Now they want Republicans to pay for it.

 

[Avatar4321]

sorry just not true:

PolitiFact | $5 trillion added to national debt under Bush

"When Bush took office, the national debt was $5.73 trillion. When he left, it was $10.7 trillion. That's a difference of $4.97 trillion, almost $1 trillion more than what Emanuel said"

True. Deficits were on the way down until 2007.

In eight years, Obama will double Bush's debt at this pace.

And he wants Republicans to pay for it? For what?

u just keep asking for it:

Increases in the National Debt Chart

Bush was responsible for the FY2008 budget which was the first over $1 T.

I seriously wouldnt have thought that "Until 2007" was that difficult to understand.