Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
That wasn't me that was the Republicans who insisted they be lumped in with the rich. In their zeal to simplify the tax code they insisted that the near wealthy be lumped in with the wealthy and super wealthy in the highest tax bracket
I don't employ any people...I just work in a sewer
But wait....there's more: Say a wealthy guy like Steve Wynn dislocates his shoulder patting himself on the back for creating 250K jobs in Las Vegas. But Wall St. and banks cause unemployment to shoot up to the highest level in the nation.
All those created jobs are lost and then some. Wynn doesn't get credit for jobs that are now gone....he must create more than 250K jobs to get the tax savings back.
Job losses due to natural disasters like Sandy must be made up, too. That is what patriotic Americans do.
Personally, I think a 20% rate on all holdings by the wealthy and brokerages and banks would be simpler. Use it or fork over 1/5th. That shouild get some of the trillions being withheld flowing.
Regards from Rosie
Do you realize that over extending by banks, government, big business, small business and consumers, led to the collapse of 2008? Government chastised bank and business for not saving and having a cash reserve, now, you want us to go back to what made the mess?
They are overdoing it the other way....with a political agenda. Wall St. and banks want to go back to what made the mess: loads of deregulation and lack of oversight. They are holding excess funds hostage to get deregulated again.
And if Romney had won they would have had it by the first 100 days, too. A HUGE Wal-Mart style regulation rollback would be wrapping up by the end of March.
So...do YOU want to be involuntarily drug back there?
Regards from Rosie
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
Do you realize that over extending by banks, government, big business, small business and consumers, led to the collapse of 2008? Government chastised bank and business for not saving and having a cash reserve, now, you want us to go back to what made the mess?
They are overdoing it the other way....with a political agenda. Wall St. and banks want to go back to what made the mess: loads of deregulation and lack of oversight. They are holding excess funds hostage to get deregulated again.
And if Romney had won they would have had it by the first 100 days, too. A HUGE Wal-Mart style regulation rollback would be wrapping up by the end of March.
So...do YOU want to be involuntarily drug back there?
Regards from Rosie
They are protecting themselves from failing. Microsoft held high cash reserves before 2008 and had a much easier time during the subsequent down turn.
And will all the scrutiny the banks went under for bad loans, do you really blame them for holding back on approving business loans?
Your scenario, is way to simplistic, there are a lot of market forces, and changing of business practices are moving into place to help protect themselves in case of another collapse. Putting money away and not borrowing for many companies is a very wise thing to do. They would have fared better in 2008.
I changed my home budget in 2008. I spend less than I did before and am saving, I want security over expansion.
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
A couple making 250K will not get their rates raised.
Since Republicans have deemed that we can no longer call the wealthiest Americans rich, but must refer to them as "job creators"
How about instead of a MASSIVE 4% tax increase across the board for the richest 2%....Those who can actually demonstrate that they have created jobs get no tax increase
Those in the richest 2% who cannot demonstrate that they are creating jobs face an 8% tax increase
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
He referred to the 'richest 2%', not 'the rich'. Where is the income cut off for the 'richest 2%'?
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
He referred to the 'richest 2%', not 'the rich'. Where is the income cut off for the 'richest 2%'?
Over and over Bam Bam has said "the wealthiest Americans those that make over 250K a year blah blah blah"
That 4% increase in taxes could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. You might peg it at $4,000 but that doesn't make it true. A 4% increase in taxes could prevent not only the hiring of several people, but causing the lay offs of those that did have a job.
The number of employees you have is based on the demand for your service or product. Employee salaries are deducted as a business expense. You will not lay off employees if the demand is still there.....THAT is where you lose profit
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
He referred to the 'richest 2%', not 'the rich'. Where is the income cut off for the 'richest 2%'?
Over and over Bam Bam has said "the wealthiest Americans those that make over 250K a year blah blah blah"
You don't call the wealthiest Americans rich you call a couple making 250K a year rich.
Sorry but 250K a year doesn't make a couple "rich".
I have 10 employees on my payroll how many people do you employ?
A couple making 250K will not get their rates raised.
No but those making 250001 will
Is that one dollar the dividing line between the rich and the rest of you?
That 4% increase in taxes could run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. You might peg it at $4,000 but that doesn't make it true. A 4% increase in taxes could prevent not only the hiring of several people, but causing the lay offs of those that did have a job.
The number of employees you have is based on the demand for your service or product. Employee salaries are deducted as a business expense. You will not lay off employees if the demand is still there.....THAT is where you lose profit
That's plainly not true. Otherwise Hostess wouldn't have gone bankrupt. The demand is still there. When costs rise the company has two options, absorb the cost or part of the cost, or pass that cost along to their customers. Once the price charged exceeds the benefit of the product or service the demand automatically goes down. You've never been in business, like most liberals, you don't know the principles of business practice. This is exactly why so many companies have moved out of the country. The demand for their products is still there, but the company can't meet the imposed obligations and remain viable.
The number of employees you have is based on the demand for your service or product. Employee salaries are deducted as a business expense. You will not lay off employees if the demand is still there.....THAT is where you lose profit
That's plainly not true. Otherwise Hostess wouldn't have gone bankrupt. The demand is still there. When costs rise the company has two options, absorb the cost or part of the cost, or pass that cost along to their customers. Once the price charged exceeds the benefit of the product or service the demand automatically goes down. You've never been in business, like most liberals, you don't know the principles of business practice. This is exactly why so many companies have moved out of the country. The demand for their products is still there, but the company can't meet the imposed obligations and remain viable.
If Hostess is bankrupt they don't have any profits, so the tax rate on their non-existent profits is irrelevant.
Social workers handing out Dem vote-buying money?Just out of curiosity...does anyone know how many jobs the wealthiest 2% actually create (here in the US of A)?
It is a pretty safe guess that most, if not all, jobs are provided by businesses/companies owned by the wealthiest 2%.
Just out of curiosity...does anyone know how many jobs are or have been created by poor people? In the United States or anywhere else??
It's not supposed to operate in the red either we see where that leads. How about the programs that are no longer needed or a serve a purpose can we cut those?If we can add to that offer any government program that has been operating in the red for say five year's or more get's it's budget slashed till it shows it can run in the black and any program that no longer really serves any legitimate purpose is ended outright.
Government is not allowed to operate on a profit
A couple making 250K will not get their rates raised.
No but those making 250001 will
Is that one dollar the dividing line between the rich and the rest of you?
Yes, they would pay an extra 4 cents.
That's plainly not true. Otherwise Hostess wouldn't have gone bankrupt. The demand is still there. When costs rise the company has two options, absorb the cost or part of the cost, or pass that cost along to their customers. Once the price charged exceeds the benefit of the product or service the demand automatically goes down. You've never been in business, like most liberals, you don't know the principles of business practice. This is exactly why so many companies have moved out of the country. The demand for their products is still there, but the company can't meet the imposed obligations and remain viable.
If Hostess is bankrupt they don't have any profits, so the tax rate on their non-existent profits is irrelevant.
When costs, of whatever source, result in the product or service exceeding the benefit of the product or service, the company closes no matter how large the demand is. With Hostess, the thrill is that 18,500 employees won't be paying taxes anymore, no matter what the tax liability of Hostess is.
No but those making 250001 will
Is that one dollar the dividing line between the rich and the rest of you?
Yes, they would pay an extra 4 cents.
If it's only 4 cents then why doesn't everyone pay 4% more?
After all it's such a small amount right? What happened to "shared sacrifice" and all that shit?
