OT - a rational, fair republican voice?

On Wed, 29 Sep 2010 18:24:23 -0400, jeff 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

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.

jeff

I still don't get no one talks about separating personal and corporate
income tax -- it's like Republicans know that without the claim of
"hurting small business" they have nothing to stand on. 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.

On Sep 30, 5:34*am, 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...small-business....

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.

jeff

Obama has been a chucklehead ever since he came on the scene. He is an
empty suit
devoid of any executive experience or common sense. He won the
election ( & "noble" peace
prize ) based on platitudes and intangible concepts. He truly is
lighter than air.

Barak Obama is living proof that when the going gets tough, the
lightweights go on vacation.
He and his mindless followers all chant oBAMa...um, um, um.... before
they drink the Kool Aid.......

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 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 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.