OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

On 9/30/2010 8:25 AM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-30 07:30:04 -0400, jeff said:

On 9/29/2010 7:44 PM, D. LaCourse wrote:
On 2010-09-29 18:24:23 -0400, jeff said:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp



How

about

a rational, fair Democrat's voice?

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39517

It works. Obamaism doesn't.

Dave



dave...do you remember the tax rate during that period?

I remember being VERY poor as a First Class Petty Officer in the Navy. I
remember that JFK gave me a wonderful gift by lowering my taxes
*drastically*, and improving the military.

you might go back and review the tax rates...context can be important.


wtf is "Obamaism"?

Call it Obamanomics. It sure as hell doesn't work. Our country is losing
its greatness and becoming a 3rd world nation. If we continue on this
path, there WILL be a revolution. Count on it. People are ****ed, even
the poor ones. My grandchildren (the three grown and working ones) are
very angry at what WE have done to their future. They realize that we
have a president that is good at three things: Campaigning, spending,
and blaming.

Dave

hmmm...funny how you were so reserved and accepting during bush years.
the anger is misplaced.

you really need to broaden your information sources and seek a more
balanced pool of data providers. federer?? ...c'mon. there is plenty
to constructively criticize in a reasoned, fair, and balanced
manner...as there always has been.

the process of reasoning really ought to involve more than just finding
those who say what you already believe or want to believe...

jeff

jeff

On 2010-09-30 09:34:41 -0400, jeff said:

you really need to broaden your information sources and seek a more
balanced pool of data providers. federer??

You're killing the messenger, Jeff. Federer has just quoted JFK,
nothing more. There is no Federer opinion or words, just what JFK has
said about taxes. I googled jfk and taxes, and the link I quoted was
the first to pop up. And it is true. If we tax those over $250k even
more, Congress will simply waste it

We *can not* spend our way into prosperity. Taxing those that are the
entrepreneurs of our economy is not the way to go. Taxing those that
make more than $250k is down right stupid - especially so for those
that live in high expense communities like NYC. That 250K doesn't go
very far, and to tax these people leaves less for them to spend/invest.

I would not mind if the both Houses were Dems. Just get rid of Nancy
Pelosi and Harry Reed. They are horrible leaders who have become
accustomed to power, forgetting WHY they are in Congress.

Rainy morning here in the mountains. Fun watching the clouds and rain
come over the ridges from the west.

Dave

On 2010-09-30 09:19:12 -0400, D. LaCourse said:

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

Sorry. Hit the send button somehow.....

Anyway, my kids are running the supermarket and they take about a $250k
profit every year. But their taxes are horrible, including
Massachusetts. If they are taxes further, they simply won't spend as
much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right. Sure, go ahead and tax the Soroses, Gates, Kerrys, etc, but
leave the little business man alone.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

BTW, gold is at its highest. When mistrust of government goes down,
gold goes up. Now there is a bill out there that would require
everyone who buys or sells more than $600 of gold to file a form. Why
does the government want to track who own gold?

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in. They will be paying for this mess for
their entire lives. The times they are a-changing, and the change
ain't good.

Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 07:34:48 -0400, jeff wrote:

On 9/29/2010 9:48 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:23 -0400, wrote:

http://boss.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/0...eria/?src=dayp

Rational? Seemingly. Fair? Who knows. And the unasked question: Accurate?
Not in the least.

HTH,
R

and how is that guy "inaccurate"? at least he goes about the question
and process without the divisive phony rhetoric being seized upon by the
anti-anything-obama politicians.

The inaccuracy stems from the fact that he fails to address the "real-world"
ramifications of Fed action, as well as using the businesses' "net profit" as
some basis for computation as to what the effects of a increase in the
_personal_ tax rate might be. But OK. Suppose, as a reasonable example, these
are "family" businesses in which 2-3 people share in the "net profit" as their
yearly income. Let's say, to keep numbers simple, that in all cases, the owners
make 250K each. That's 12.5K each based solely on the roughly 5% increase to
those at 250K or above. In the "real world," most folks making in the range of
250K a year will almost certainly feel a 5% hit to their net income. Granted,
if Gates or Buffett takes a 5% hit in net worth, the effect on their lifestyle
is non-existent, but business owners making 250, 500, even a mil aren't Gates or
Buffett. In fact, Gates and Buffett have practically no danger, financially,
short of doing something mind-bogglingly stupid, whereas the relatively small
business owner could easily wind up flat-assed broke (not because of this one
thing, but many are "all in" in the sense that they are "at risk," on many
fronts) even if they generally do everything "right."

As to other effects, think about how Greenspan, etc. got into trouble and
economists still get into trouble. People don't act "rationally" or as
predicted ala some economic theory, and if you give them bad news combined with
a climate of uncertainty, they act less so. A recent poll showed that folks in
US now feel that the GOP can better provide for national security and Obama's
job approval in that area has slipped. WTF? It's not rational, but it's the
way it is - they have lost confidence in the Dems and him, so even in areas that
there is no rational reason to feel that either party could handle X better than
the other, folks still feel the way they feel. You're a lawyer - if anyone
ought to have a understanding of less-than-rational behavior, it's a lawyer.

IAC, combine that with folks who are already carrying a large chunk of the load
being asked to carry all that more, and for things that they see (objectively
and subjectively) as either not helping or actually hurting the overall
situation (i.e., healthcare reform as it currently stands, uneven regulations,
seemingly randomly created and administered "bailouts," etc., etc.). And then
add the jumpy markets (i.e., US stocks and bourses, commodities part. oil and
gold, currency pairs, etc.), caused in part, but not entirely, by such actions
and what appears to be a Fed without any clear plan, and the personal "fear"
seems at least reasonable, even if it isn't purely and objectively warranted.

And now, you tell the folks in what is, relatively, a low-ish income level for
the risks assumed in owning and running a business (IOW, 250K to 500K can
provide a nice lifestyle, but it ain't exactly robber-baron rich) that you're
gonna clip 'em ANOTHER 5%. And IMO, the "ding" to the confidence of such folks
is perfectly understandable.

TC,
R

jeff

How do you like your Nobel Prize winner STILL prosecuting two wars?
Contrary to what that liar
said, combat troops are STILL going over to Iraq. And he increased the
size of the Afghanistan
war. In addition he just sold 65 BILLION DOLLARS worth of weapons to
Saudi Arabia. Had enough.

Obama is a lackey for the bankers/corporations. I'll bet you bought on
to the "yes we can" slogan.

HAH How do you like the CHAINS YOU CAN BELIEVE IN!

Put the bong down and pay attention, for a change!

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 11:20:26 -0400, D. LaCourse
wrote:

On 2010-09-30 09:19:12 -0400, D. LaCourse said:

On 2010-09-30 09:15:59 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

BTW plenty of
small businesses that actually employ people make barely any profit,
so raising their rates doesn't really matter, and many _highly_
profitable "small businesses" are essentially self-employed
consultants in wall street, banking, and other sectors where money
flows freely. They aren't creating any jobs. I say tax 'em! Down with
plutocracy!

Jon.

My oldest daughter and her husband (and now their 2nd son) own/run a
supermarket. They employ about 30 people, mostly part time workers.

Sorry. Hit the send button somehow.....

Anyway, my kids are running the supermarket and they take about a $250k
profit every year. But their taxes are horrible, including
Massachusetts. If they are taxes further, they simply won't spend as
much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right. Sure, go ahead and tax the Soroses, Gates, Kerrys, etc, but
leave the little business man alone.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

BTW, gold is at its highest. When mistrust of government goes down,
gold goes up. Now there is a bill out there that would require
everyone who buys or sells more than $600 of gold to file a form. Why
does the government want to track who own gold?

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in. They will be paying for this mess for
their entire lives. The times they are a-changing, and the change
ain't good.

Dave


Dave
Perhaps
You and I agree on something or I at least agree a bit w your
grandchildren in that I have absolutely no trust nor faith in the US
Federal government

I pay my taxes because mainly I dio not want to go to prison!
I dio nNot like waht they do w my money in my name

Fred

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Jon.

On 2010-09-30 16:35:33 -0400, Jonathan Cook said:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring.

No it isn't, Jon. If they are taxed *more* then they won't be able to
reinvest in the stores or in new people. They work very hard for that
money, seven days a week, sometime until 9 pm at night. More taxes
will means less money, less money means less investment. Hang the
millionaires, but not the $250k/year folks. They don't deserve to be
punished with more taxes simply because they work hard and achieve.


Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

Are you saying you are an underachiever? Not my fault you can't make
money at a small business. My kids did and they don't have any letters
after their name.

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

And that is GOOD? It is time to stop the foolishness in Washington.
It is time to stop paying off the unions and everyone else that helped
get them elexted. Enough is enough.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Notice I said "you and me?" At least they realize that I am not
pro-Obama or approve of this spending spree this idiot is taking us on.
He just gave another $20B to foreign aid. That money could have been
spend HERE. The rest of the world hates us because of our freedoms and
our riches and I doubt very much giving more money to them will amount
to a hill of beans.
Dave

On Thu, 30 Sep 2010 13:35:33 -0700 (PDT), Jonathan Cook
wrote:

On Sep 30, 9:20 am, D. LaCourse wrote:

much reinvesting in the store. To think that $250k a year is a lot of
money and those that make it are *millionaires* is false. It takes
money to run a business, any business, and to pay more taxes just is
not right.

The money they reinvest won't be taxed regardless the tax rate; that's
a red herring. Presumably they are paying themselves a reasonable
"living" wage which comes out of the business before figuring its
profit, so if they're pulling $250K profit on top of that I have no
problem taxing it. I have personal decades-long experience with a
small business that didn't see that kind of profit in 10 years, much
less one, so I'm having a hard time sympathizing.

This is what I don't get - why shouldn't _all_ "business owners" be taxed
equally? Why should those who do _moderately_ well be taxed more? Let's be
realistic, 250K is certainly comfortable, but it isn't rolling-in-it-rich - why
not tax 100K or even 50K at 40%? According to your own description, you spent
decades and only made 25K a year - where does your "sympathy" begin?

Congress and this president think that we can spend our way into
prosperity. That is the first time I have ever encountered that
thinking.

Oh come on. Both parties have been doing this for 40 years...neither
party is saying anything that could be even remotely construed as
coming close to doing anything serious about deficit spending. They
are both addicted to Bernanke's printing press.

My grandkids are ****ed at you and me and Fortenberry, et al for the
position we have put them in.

And they should be. The prosperity we enjoyed (you included) we didn't
earn; we simply borrowed it from them.

Um, what's this "we" ****, Kemosabe? I work _hard_ to earn what I earn (and
yes, I readily admit it - I "play" pretty hard, too, but I do it on money I've
earned) and I put my own capital at risk when and where necessary. I do not
feel the need to further subsidize things for those who simply don't wish to pay
for what they want - _want_ - not _need_ and are unable to provide it for
themselves. For example, I've never financed a car or any other consumer
good(s), yet plenty of folks finance darned near everything and do so based upon
_want_, not _need_.

Many folks in the US make such a big deal about how well many European countries
treat folks, but in France, for example, if you earn anything, you pay into the
kitty, and even with that, they've still managed to spend themselves into
problems. Most folks accept the fact that no one will just come right out and
buy them a TV, a car, etc., yet somehow they think that others should pay for
their "government-supplied" services (and even those things that really
shouldn't be government-supplied, like health care or retirement, the small
portion of society who simply cannot provide for themselves excepted).

TC,
R

Jon.