So Mr. Fleischer is sobbing that he is required to partake financially in the world of freedom's created for him by others spilling their very life blood?

Cue Phreddy and the story line that Mr. Fleischer deserves to profit from those who have gone before and should not be required to participate in the maintenance of the system that enriches him.

George Orr wrote:

Shut off his water; pull up the sidewalks and streets that lead to his building; tell the police, fire/rescue and garbagemen to cross that building off their lists for service...etc., etc., etc.

Municipal services are often private (water/sewer, trash services, etc). Those that aren't may be subsidized, but are primarily funded by county and property taxes.

George Orr wrote:

Oh, and make him pay for 13+ years of tuition for each and every one of his employees...

OK, here you've lost me.

Private enterprise is sitting on $3 Trillion in capital ready to inject into the economy.  They are holding it back because of the fact that they do not know how much Obamacare and the rest of the Democrat party's policies are going to cost us.

*EDIT*  Sorry, billion didn't seem right.  I double checked and it wasn't.

Last edited by Scotty (2010-08-11 09:55:20)

phreddy wrote:

Despite Fleischer's complaints about excessive taxation, he still runs a business, pays taxes, and provides jobs.  His complaint regards the potential that Democrats will impose even further burdens on him and his existing employees, to the point where he is hesitant to hire anyone else.  Business thrives on stability and known quantities.  Obama and company are providing none of it.  If they would just back off and allow business to flourish, we would see the recovery that should have been here a year ago.

Doubtful, if we just simply back off we will most likely see a continuance of the crash our previous government arranged for us.

After the eight years of lower taxes the question would have to be, is the economy better off for it? And the definite answer is no. We slid deeper and deeper in debt due to the massive overspending of the previous administration. And the results are what we are living with today.

I know the Right doesn't like to hear it, but then many of them obviously didn't study any sort of economics. We are working slowly out of the whole they dug for us. And yes, the deficit has increased, but much of that continues to be a consequence of the Bush tax cuts which are due to expire along with the illegal war we have waged in two countries. I don't agree with Obama that we should continue with those cuts for most Americans. 50 years ago the tax rate was much higher, yet the country was financially much more sound. And the American dream was achievable. Today for most that dream is exactly that. A dream. Even those on the Right have to admit that not only the government, but America as a whole is wallowing in debt. It is time for everyone to live more within their means.

I believe it is time for both parties to bite the bullet and admit that higher taxes are necessary, like it or not. It is certainly going to be unpopular, but necessary to overcome the losses of the past. I agree with the Right that smaller government is also necessary in order to lower the costs. I also believe that our overblown military needs to be trimmed down as well. It is never going to be popular to fix things, but the longer we wait, the worse things are going to get.

Scotty wrote:

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

I believe it is time for both parties to bite the bullet and admit that higher taxes are necessary, like it or not.

You're a fucking idiot who doesn't deserve to breathe my air.

Come on, tax cuts (especially for the wealthy) have been completely unrelated to economic prosperity as a whole since the 80s at least.

doesyourpussyhurt wrote:

And that is exactly the intelligent response I expected from you Scotty. No opposing viewpoint, as usual from the Right, and no answers. Typical of the Party of No for some time now.

Yes, because I am a flaming fucking Republican.  Blow me.

Kennedy.  Kennedy.  Kennedy.

And I will tell you what(and this goes for you as well, Ah Pook), you stop harping on tax cuts for the wealthy and I will personally make W recant WMD's in relation to Iraq.

You fucking morons.

phreddy wrote:

Calm down Scotty.  They are simply ignorant of economics and know not the hand that feeds them.  As soon as the liberals in this regime are corraled and prevented from writing bad checks, the economy will soar.  Then we can chuckle at the pretzel logic they use to explain the phenomenon.

Feb, 2008:  Bush Administration enacts $152 Billion dollar stimulous package, financed with public debt
Sep, 2008:  Bush Administration enacts TARP, a $740 Billion dollar bailout financed with public debt
Dec, 2008:  Bush Administration purchases controlling interest in GM & Chrysler, financed with public debt

I'm glad to see the Obama regime is simply following the Bush regimes policy of writing bad checks at the drop of the hat, continuity in criminality across party lines.

Ah wrote:

How does cutting income taxes for the rich encourage hiring of we non-rich?

Two answers:

1.  Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?  Of course not.  It is the wealthy who invest their money into entrepreneureal ventures who create jobs and more wealth.  Corporations are made up of people who have decided to invest their money.  Also, it is not a net sum game.  The rich are not living on the backs of the poor.  The more rich people we have, the better the standard of living for everyone.

2.  This government has identified the "rich" as those making more than $250,000.  This takes in a large segment of small business owners.  According to the Census Bureau, small businesses make up 99.7% of all employers in the U.S. and they provide more than half the jobs.  If you stifle them, you stifle America's economy, simple as that.

phreddy wrote:

The more rich people we have, the better the standard of living for everyone.

Political myth, there is no direct correlation.

phreddy wrote:

This government has identified the "rich" as those making more than $250,000.

$250k p/year is wealthy under any definition; however your claim that most small business owners make this kind of scratch is unsubstantiated - basically another political myth perpetuated for political gain.

This is the same logic they try to use with the capital gains tax; the conservatives claim that if you had to pay the same level of tax on income earned via capital gains it would stifle investment.  Which is ludicrous on it's very face as we all know Bill Gates isn't going to pull his money out of the markets and stick it under his mattress.


What is a historical fact is that during the 40+ years (pre-Reagan) of high taxes on the wealthy we did not have a single financial market crash.  Since those initial tax cuts we've had numerous, this isn't numbers contrived from various formulas; just facts.

Dmtdust wrote:

"The more rich people we have, the better the standard of living for everyone."

Phredd, with all due respect, the more money one small segment of society has, the less everyone else has.  Wealth in a capitalist system is not infinite, (nor is money....)  Truly you know that?

In a dictatorship or any other country with centralized government, the wealth is controlled by a small societal segment.  But this is a small segment and the money is stolen and hoarded by the ruling class.  However, in a true democracy, wealth generates wealth.  Look across the free world.  The countries with the largest proportion of rich people have the highest standards of living.  I thought this was obvious.  Do you really believe that reducing America's wealthiest individuals to working class status would improve the economy?  Remember, wealth is portable.  If you attempt to steal honest profits from the wealthy, they will take their ball and join another game.

phreddy wrote:

Ah wrote:

How does cutting income taxes for the rich encourage hiring of we non-rich?

Two answers:

1.  Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?  Of course not.  It is the wealthy who invest their money into entrepreneureal ventures who create jobs and more wealth.  Corporations are made up of people who have decided to invest their money.  Also, it is not a net sum game.  The rich are not living on the backs of the poor.  The more rich people we have, the better the standard of living for everyone.

2.  This government has identified the "rich" as those making more than $250,000.  This takes in a large segment of small business owners.  According to the Census Bureau, small businesses make up 99.7% of all employers in the U.S. and they provide more than half the jobs.  If you stifle them, you stifle America's economy, simple as that.

1) That's what I was saying though--I've never gotten a job from a rich person either. I get a job from a company or non-profit. That's why I'm alright with cutting corporate taxes but would rather have taxed rich than a large deficit. At least taxed as much as they were in the 80s. I still don't understand why the take-home pay of the rich is conflated with the corporate money that is used to hire us unwashed masses.

2) People making that much can fend for themselves and don't need my help. I make 10k a year. And there has to be a way to separate a small business owner's personal profits from Lebron's salary.

And I still think that cutting taxes for the rich and general economic health have been unrelated. During the halcyon boom times of the 50s, when everything was milk and honey, the highest tax rate was 90%. Bush cut taxes for the wealthy, and the economy didn't take off, it was in a holding pattern for years. It seems like prosperity doesn't necessarily follow from having richer rich people.

phreddy wrote:

According to the Census Bureau, small businesses make up 99.7% of all employers in the U.S. and they provide more than half the jobs.

This is from 1997 and means that 0.3% of the nation's employers employed 48% of the workforce.  In the US a small business can have 500 people, in the EU its 50.
Throughout history, the very wealthy have repeatedly demonstrated their never-ending desire for power and fucking over the rest of mankind.  We need a salary cap for all people and not just sports figures.

All of this talk is pretty troubling.  Right now half of the earners in the U.S. pay NO federal income tax.  That means that half of the voters, who are paying nothing, have the ability to take money from the ones who do pay and redistribute it as they choose.  Fortunately, many of the non-payers do not vote, for now anyway.  But as the percentage grows, it will spell disaster for our society.  Imagine your neighbor, who doesn't work, has the unfettered right to confiscate as much of your income as he wants.  In no way am I close to the magic "rich" income level.  However, I understand what can and will happen if we try to take too much honest income from those who earn it.  This is a very slippery slope you people would take us down.

phreddy wrote:

All of this talk is pretty troubling.  Right now half of the earners in the U.S. pay NO federal income tax.  That means that half of the voters, who are paying nothing, have the ability to take money from the ones who do pay and redistribute it as they choose.  Fortunately, many of the non-payers do not vote, for now anyway.  But as the percentage grows, it will spell disaster for our society.  Imagine your neighbor, who doesn't work, has the unfettered right to confiscate as much of your income as he wants.  In no way am I close to the magic "rich" income level.  However, I understand what can and will happen if we try to take too much honest income from those who earn it.  This is a very slippery slope you people would take us down.

Well Phreddy, I am in that magical range but that is what it is; I'm not going to stop working hard just cuz my taxes went up a little.

I have noticed that the non-tax paying percentage continues to creep up as the volume of the whining from the right gets louder; what's really fun to contemplate is that significant portion of those non-payers of Federal Income Tax are the uber-wealthy.  Yup, no Income Tax for them - just a little Cap Gains tax is all.

Scotty wrote:

Yes, because I am a flaming fucking Republican.  Blow me.

Indeed.
Are you screwing the pooch or is the pooch screwing you?

Dmtdust wrote:

Sorry, I couldn't find the "gay sex with strangers in public restrooms" node for the conservatives....

phreddy wrote:

Ah wrote:

How does cutting income taxes for the rich encourage hiring of we non-rich?

Two answers:

1.  Have you ever gotten a job from a poor person?  Of course not.  It is the wealthy who invest their money into entrepreneureal ventures who create jobs and more wealth.  Corporations are made up of people who have decided to invest their money.  Also, it is not a net sum game.  The rich are not living on the backs of the poor.  The more rich people we have, the better the standard of living for everyone.

2.  This government has identified the "rich" as those making more than $250,000.  This takes in a large segment of small business owners.  According to the Census Bureau, small businesses make up 99.7% of all employers in the U.S. and they provide more than half the jobs.  If you stifle them, you stifle America's economy, simple as that.

Only about 3% of small businesses would be affected.  You might want to update your talking points.

ah297900 wrote:

Scotty wrote:

gibberish like "tax cuts for the rich" and "raise taxes to raise revenue."

I don't understand what the problem is with either of those statements, especially raising taxes to raise revenue.

He's swallowed the myth that cutting taxes increases revenue, and isn't going to let any leftist cockfag make him provide any evidence for this assertion.  If he was a little more serious about this argument he'd probably skip through the ad hominem straight to an appeal to authority or popularity, but I don't think he's that serious.

ah297900 wrote:

Therefore, there has to be some inflection point where cutting taxes begins to decrease revenue; otherwise zero taxes would produce infinite revenue.

Absolutely. You have just defined the job of the treasury department. Solve for the second derivative of income for zero and you will have the right combination. Assuming you could see the future and you could get the rest of the countries in the world to remain static.

Yield guessing at the IRS is like playing lawn darts with Helen Keller. Sometimes she wins and sometimes you get a bolt through your brain.