Democrats will use this for 2012 elections

[Common Sense]

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.

Deficits:
2001 - $113 Billion
2002 - $421 Billion
2003 - $555 Billion
2004 - $596 Billion
2005 - $554 Billion
2006 - $574 Billion
2007 - $501 Billion

and just for good measure:
2008 - $1.017 Trillion

hmmmm not exactly an overall downward trend now. it went up every year except 2005 and 2007.

 

[Revere]

Give us 2009, 2010 and 2011 "for good measure."

 

[Common Sense]

Give us 2009, 2010 and 2011 "for good measure."

well lets look at the causes of the deficits under Bush and then Obama.

Bush took huge deficits during a bull market. employment was up, tax revenues were increasing, yet he still couldnt balance the budget. The Recession hit employment tanked. decreasing tax revenues.

Obama came into office with an already $1.4 trillion deficit, and what were his options? do nothing and hope the economy came back on its own? let the banks and GM fail, only accelerating job losses?

Read this:

Blog : Who's to blame for the deficit? - Capital Journal Pierre, SD newspaper since 1881

you can't simply compare the Bush years to the Obama years in terms of numbers.
by that arguement you can compare the Reagan/Bush 1 years to Clinton.

Both Reagan and Bush 1 increased the overall deficit while lowering taxes, (albeit during a recession for Bush) but when Clinton came in, during a bull market he managed to get tax increases and lower the deficit to the point it was actually a surplus by the time he left.

Economists said a 39% tax bracket for the wealthy would cause so much economic harm that the US was fall into a deep deep recession. none of that actually happened, and ever with higher taxes, the economy grew steadily and everyone, including the wealthy made more money.

 

[Revere]

If George Bush's $500B deficts are ill advised, what does that make Barack Obama's $1T deficits?

 

[Common Sense]

If George Bush's $500B deficts are ill advised, what does that make Barack Obama's $1T deficits?

im not saying that Obama is not to blame for some of the deficit. but his addition to the deficit was during a recession and was aimed at helping to recover from that (whether you believe it did or didnt is not the argument here) he believed that he has to stave off a depression and tried to inject money into people hands.

Bush on the other hand, cut taxes during a boom and added to the deficit (unlike Clinton who increased taxes on the wealthy and cut the deficit to a surplus)

the reasoning behind each thinking is completely different. so why didnt bush pay for any of his increases? at some point, the president has to make a tough choice of raising taxes, cutting spending and reducing the deficits. now that i think the emergency spending is over, that is something that should be concentrated upon.

im in the middle class, and would hate to see a rise in taxes, but i understand that if it does occur that its not Obama's fault. its those in congress (both D & R) who think adding $700 bil to the deficit to give the money to the top 2% is a wise investment.

its all about return on that money. the group with the largest spending power is the middle class. historically when the middle class has extra money in their pockets they pump that money back into the economy. historically the wealthy either save or invest those monies.

if the idea is to create jobs, no one is going to want to start hiring until the believe the economy is growing (which is has started to again).

so here is an idea for a compromise. for those small business owners who will be hit by this, how about a tax refund of $500-$1000 for every employee they hire to offset the potential rise in taxes? (employee must be employed for at least 6 months of 2011) this kills two birds with one stone. it promotes job growth, and it takes the well i would hire if my taxes hadnt gone up argument. you are given incentive to hire. this also takes the wealthy who are not job creator out of the equation.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

They withhold profits for tax purposes as long as possible WITHIN THE TAX YEAR, or based on collections (accounts receivable) will carry over losses as well (if allowed to by law). That is NOT what they are doing NOW, however. So please don't try to spin it. Businesses who are hoarding profits (and not all are) are doing it because they are waiting for Republicans to take over and hopefully extend the tax cuts. It isn't as though they don't know what the tax rate will be if Obama gets his way. There IS no mystery, and tax accountants, if they're worth their salt, have had ample time to prepare business plans based on tax hikes if they happen. What these businesses are doing is playing politics with people's lives and livelihoods, and it sucks.

It's also not true that public funds (I presume you mean tax revenue) is hoarded until just the right program comes along, if that's what you meant. The House appropriates all funding depending on spending bills enacted by the Senate. There is no holding back of funding once something is approved by Appropriations. It can, however, be put in limbo by a signing statement where everything is approved except issuance of the funds.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

If you are a small business, it's likely you will probably not be affected by any tax increase. There is another huge misconception regarding this as well.

Again, if you have an accountant, he/she should be able to explain it, or since you seem like a smart guy yourself, I implore you to just READ and you will understand.

Very Few Small Business Owners Would Face Tax Increases Under President's Budget — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

Furthermore, even these estimates, from the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, may overstate the impact of these provisions because they are based on the previous administration’s definition of “small businesses,” which includes investors in small businesses who have little or no role in managing them.[1]

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

What it will cost you in health care is already available. But keep in mind that it won't affect any business at all until 2014, so you can't just sit idle for four years can you? Health care might be revised, but even so, it shouldn't affect the next few years at all. As for forecasting other federal taxes, why can't you just assume you will be paying the higher rate (although probably not) and do your forecasting based on that number? I don't get it. As I said, there's no mystery. The numbers are all there; just do forecasting based on two formulas if needed.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

I'm only talking about those companies whose primary concern is lining their own pockets. If that means screwing the very people that keep their businesses going, that's exactly what they will do. And please don't try to tell me those kinds of businesses don't exist. A business is formed to be profitable, but when the business does not respect its employees and their working conditions, that in my opinion is a moral outrage.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.
Of course it was proven in more recent studies by utilities experts that prices would NOT skyrocket, but you never hear that on FoxNews. In any event, it's dead, as I've already said, so you just wasted two minutes of your valuable time.

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.
Of course they can. And they are.

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.

I never said they were evil because they have money. My point is quite simple and, gasp, quite capitalistic: In order to succeed, businesses must be willing to take risks that are inevitably part of the ebb and flow. They need to be assured of only one thing, and that is consumer interest and potential purchase of their end product. But when they hide profits, it does nothing but sit there without the benefit of future expansion and thus future profits. In the meantime, employees remain laid off and have no money to CONSUME their product. In effect, businesses that hoard profits are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[MaggieMae]

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?

The latter aren't "victims" of anything.

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Why do you keep saying "Republicans"?? He wants a level playing field, period. But since you single out Republicans paying-for, did Republicans have a way to pay-for the two wars? The prescription drug bill? Uh uh. The reason the second tax cut had an expiration date was because the BA couldn't figure out a way to pay-for the loss in revenue beyond 2010. Now the Republicans don't want to EVER pay-for those tax cuts.

 

[MaggieMae]

If George Bush's $500B deficts are ill advised, what does that make Barack Obama's $1T deficits?

im not saying that Obama is not to blame for some of the deficit. but his addition to the deficit was during a recession and was aimed at helping to recover from that (whether you believe it did or didnt is not the argument here) he believed that he has to stave off a depression and tried to inject money into people hands.

Bush on the other hand, cut taxes during a boom and added to the deficit (unlike Clinton who increased taxes on the wealthy and cut the deficit to a surplus)

the reasoning behind each thinking is completely different. so why didnt bush pay for any of his increases? at some point, the president has to make a tough choice of raising taxes, cutting spending and reducing the deficits. now that i think the emergency spending is over, that is something that should be concentrated upon.

im in the middle class, and would hate to see a rise in taxes, but i understand that if it does occur that its not Obama's fault. its those in congress (both D & R) who think adding $700 bil to the deficit to give the money to the top 2% is a wise investment.

its all about return on that money. the group with the largest spending power is the middle class. historically when the middle class has extra money in their pockets they pump that money back into the economy. historically the wealthy either save or invest those monies.

if the idea is to create jobs, no one is going to want to start hiring until the believe the economy is growing (which is has started to again).

so here is an idea for a compromise. for those small business owners who will be hit by this, how about a tax refund of $500-$1000 for every employee they hire to offset the potential rise in taxes? (employee must be employed for at least 6 months of 2011) this kills two birds with one stone. it promotes job growth, and it takes the well i would hire if my taxes hadnt gone up argument. you are given incentive to hire. this also takes the wealthy who are not job creator out of the equation.

Your posts are of course factual and rational, but don't waste your time trying to debate Revere. He prefers to use little sound-bites to make his point, all along assuming he's sending out little zingers and winning the debate. Funny, no?

 

[Common Sense]

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.

i think there is confusion here. You stated you have a new revenue of over $250k. as i understand it, the tax will only affect your personal income if it exceeds $250k. (not your business revenues)

that withstanding, if you are taking home more than $250 in personal income then it will affect you.

 

[Harry Dresden]

"Tax Cuts for Millionaires"

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/03/us/politics/03million.html?_r=1&hpw

By then , the economy will be well on the road to recovery. This will ring a toud tones with voters.

they have been using the "Tax Cuts for Millionaires" slogan for quite awhile now....what is going to be different?

 

[JimH52]

The Republican Party has historically supported the rich, the oil companies, the affluent, and Wall Street. Now they can do exactly that, while hiding their real agenda with the "they are the ones who create Jobs" lie. They will point to today's increase in the enemplyment rate and say, "WE NEED TO GIVE MORE MORE BACK TO THE RICH." But the rich are not hiring. They have been sitting on those tax cuts. That blows that theory.

Yes, the number of jobs that were created was disappointing, but at least we aren't losing jobs like we were in the last year of the Bush administration. Maybe if the tax cuts were in place then....wait...they were! Now the Democrats will have to make a deal with the Republicans, giving their millionaire donars tax breaks, so that the unemployed can buy food. Sooner or later, the voting public will wise up to their little game.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sooner or later, the voting public will wise up to their little game.

one day the voting public will wise up to both parties games and dump both of them and form a new party that actually cares about the Country....and please...dont tell me that the Democrats have our best interests at heart....its to early to laugh.....

 

[cutter]

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??!!!!

​

Right, Growth of Government.

 

[MaggieMae]

Sooner or later, the voting public will wise up to their little game.

one day the voting public will wise up to both parties games and dump both of them and form a new party that actually cares about the Country....and please...dont tell me that the Democrats have our best interests at heart....its to early to laugh.....

I don't believe the problem is either party intending to do damage. It's the huge bureaucracy that has built up gradually over many, many years, and the near impossibility of wading through it all and coming up clean. In order to seriously "change" anything, entire agencies would have to be literally eliminated. Lobbying would have to be outlawed in direct contravention to freedom of speech guaranteed by the Constitution. And what party (even a new one) will succeed in doing that?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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??!!!!

​

Right, Growth of Government.

Ya' gotta quit listening to Porky Limbaugh....and, check-out the actual-STATS!!

​