Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 7:20 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So you're saying we should have just sat down and started bawling that someone used passenger planes as bombs and killed a couple thousand Americans.
Furthermore, Bush's unemployment numbers while in office actually made it so we had a revenue increase from the tax cuts, not a decrease. Additionally, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. If Bush decided to let taxpayers keep more of their money, that isn't Washington spending more, that is letting the people keep more of their hard-earned money.
No, we had every right to respond - in Afghanistan. Iraq was just an ego trip on Bush's part, which turned out to have been one great big money pit for America. And one that Bush never paid for, either. And that is a big part of our economic woes.
As for the tax cuts increasing revenue - that's something that only Republicans have been able to figure.
And as far as it being the people's money - Yes, yes it is. But the fact remains, the government has the right to raise taxes in order to keep the country functioning. The founding fathers collected taxes, as a matter of fact, and put down a tax rebellion - the Whiskey Rebellion - in Pennsylvania by force of arms. And no, taxing people who can afford it isn't punishing them, but cutting social programs for people who can't get by without them is.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about you look at the unemployment numbers when Bush was President, we got an increase in revenue from the tax cuts because we saw a massive increase in people having jobs. With more people paying taxes, government saw a revenue increase.
There were millions of Americans that paid taxes and had jobs while Bush was President that don't have jobs now due to the anti-business policies of Obama and the housing bubble (which government caused) bursting.
Dude one just needs to use basic math and actually did some research would know that your argument is complete and total bull****.
Or, it can be argued that both workers and businesses were still riding high on Clinton's days of prosperity... before Bush's plans actually hit home.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
14 Aug 2011, 8:17 pm
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
psychohist wrote:
Master_Pedant wrote:
This pretty much shows the extent to which you're isolated from the real world. Every attempt by the Democrats to do something about the economy has been obstructed by the morons conservatives like you vote in.
The Democrats in Canada must be very different from the U.S. In the U.S., the Democrats had complete control of both houses plus the presidency for close to two years, and all they managed to do was pass measure after measure that increased the unemployment rate.
And number5, you understand incorrectly. Perhaps you should try making a living as a small businessman yourself and see what it's really like.
Or maybe, the high unemployment was due to the mess Bush left. That, plus Republican obstructionism was a roadblock to anything constructive Democrats had been trying to accomplish.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about the Democrats start taking responsibilty for their actions for a change, instead of running around screaming that it is George W. Bush's fault.
In case your memory is too short, let me remind you that our economy got into its current dismal state under the Bush administration- before Obama ever took office. Obama can be faulted to some degree for failing to enact policies that would do more to help the economy recover, but he most certainly was not the cause of the mess.
Hate to break it to you, but the economy was starting to head south before Bush took office, and he managed to turn it around, then it started going south when the Democrats controlled Congress.
Or did Bush just make use of that surplus Clinton left him? As I recall, Bush squandered it all on his unpaid for wars, and his tax cuts for the rich.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
So you're saying we should have just sat down and started bawling that someone used passenger planes as bombs and killed a couple thousand Americans.
Furthermore, Bush's unemployment numbers while in office actually made it so we had a revenue increase from the tax cuts, not a decrease. Additionally, it isn't the Government's money, it is the taxpayer's money. If Bush decided to let taxpayers keep more of their money, that isn't Washington spending more, that is letting the people keep more of their hard-earned money.
No, we had every right to respond - in Afghanistan. Iraq was just an ego trip on Bush's part, which turned out to have been one great big money pit for America. And one that Bush never paid for, either. And that is a big part of our economic woes.
As for the tax cuts increasing revenue - that's something that only Republicans have been able to figure.
And as far as it being the people's money - Yes, yes it is. But the fact remains, the government has the right to raise taxes in order to keep the country functioning. The founding fathers collected taxes, as a matter of fact, and put down a tax rebellion - the Whiskey Rebellion - in Pennsylvania by force of arms. And no, taxing people who can afford it isn't punishing them, but cutting social programs for people who can't get by without them is.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
How about you look at the unemployment numbers when Bush was President, we got an increase in revenue from the tax cuts because we saw a massive increase in people having jobs. With more people paying taxes, government saw a revenue increase.
There were millions of Americans that paid taxes and had jobs while Bush was President that don't have jobs now due to the anti-business policies of Obama and the housing bubble (which government caused) bursting.
Dude one just needs to use basic math and actually did some research would know that your argument is complete and total bull****.
Or, it can be argued that both workers and businesses were still riding high on Clinton's days of prosperity... before Bush's plans actually hit home.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Study your history, the economy was starting to tank around the year 2000, while Clinton was still in office. Then we had Enron getting exposed for what it was, pretty much as soon as Bush took office (which I suppose you want to blame him for that too), top that off we had 9/11/2001. He managed to get the economy going again with unemployment levels that we can only dream about right now.
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 8:23 pm
14 Aug 2011, 8:44 pm
14 Aug 2011, 8:48 pm
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,239
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
14 Aug 2011, 9:02 pm
14 Aug 2011, 11:57 pm
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That economic slump that began in Clinton's last days wasn't all that bad. And I'd credit Clinton's economic achievement more of the cause of the prosperity if Bush's early days.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Clinton's "prosperity" was due to the dot.com bubble, which burst and caused all kinds of problems. Your argument that taxing small business owners more so the government can spend more in an irresponsible fashion is idiotic.
Clinton ran a surplus. Bush ran unfunded wars. And no where did anyone mention higher taxes on small business owners (including Obama).
Okay I'm going to break it down for you, Obama's speeches are poll tested, every word it tested in order to get a favorable response. Whenever Obama says "millionaires and billionaires," he is in reality referring to small business owners. His comments about $250,000 a year and up is also a good indicator that he is referring to small business owners.
15 Aug 2011, 12:19 am
Inuyasha wrote:
Okay I'm going to break it down for you, Obama's speeches are poll tested, every word it tested in order to get a favorable response. Whenever Obama says "millionaires and billionaires," he is in reality referring to small business owners. His comments about $250,000 a year and up is also a good indicator that he is referring to small business owners.
Small business owners think Obama's too obsessed at giving them tax breaks:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/0 ... wont-work/
15 Aug 2011, 12:27 am
15 Aug 2011, 12:28 am
Master_Pedant wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Okay I'm going to break it down for you, Obama's speeches are poll tested, every word it tested in order to get a favorable response. Whenever Obama says "millionaires and billionaires," he is in reality referring to small business owners. His comments about $250,000 a year and up is also a good indicator that he is referring to small business owners.
Small business owners think Obama's too obsessed at giving them tax breaks:
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/0 ... wont-work/
steve_in_nj wrote:
The title of this article is really a misnomer!! Small business isn’t saying that tax-rate cuts won’t work. “Small business” is saying that forward-loading deductibility of plant and equipment, by itself, won’t do the job completely, although it is a good first step. What all business wants to know is, “How much will this hire cost me?” – speaking to the unpredictable morass of new labor costs, regulations on one side, and “How much money can I make, take-home, out of this hire?” – addressing the chaos that will ensue as the Democratic-controlled congress debates and log-rolls over whether to extend the Bush tax-rate cuts which have generated so much revenue for the government through increases in conformance and business activity. boehner’s plan, extending the cuts for another two years, should do a lot to improve hiring, right away, by setting up a lot of opportunities to make money and keep most of it.For that, businesses will hire. Some, but not a majority, will invest in new plant, equipment etc. to take advantage of a better write-off; but this will not really stimulate hiring because of the uncertainty of how much the income generated by new hires will pay off.
As no one in the Demo party seems to get this, I’m looking for a fairly gloomy picture, pre-election.
As no one in the Demo party seems to get this, I’m looking for a fairly gloomy picture, pre-election.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/09/0 ... wont-work/
The comments page from your own source pretty much sum it up.
16 Aug 2011, 8:15 am
16 Aug 2011, 8:30 am
16 Aug 2011, 10:35 am
16 Aug 2011, 10:57 am
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That economic slump that began in Clinton's last days wasn't all that bad. And I'd credit Clinton's economic achievement more of the cause of the prosperity if Bush's early days.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Clinton's "prosperity" was due to the dot.com bubble, which burst and caused all kinds of problems. Your argument that taxing small business owners more so the government can spend more in an irresponsible fashion is idiotic.
Clinton ran a surplus. Bush ran unfunded wars. And no where did anyone mention higher taxes on small business owners (including Obama).
Okay I'm going to break it down for you, Obama's speeches are poll tested, every word it tested in order to get a favorable response. Whenever Obama says "millionaires and billionaires," he is in reality referring to small business owners. His comments about $250,000 a year and up is also a good indicator that he is referring to small business owners.
16 Aug 2011, 11:11 am
16 Aug 2011, 11:16 am
AceOfSpades wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
number5 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
That economic slump that began in Clinton's last days wasn't all that bad. And I'd credit Clinton's economic achievement more of the cause of the prosperity if Bush's early days.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
Clinton's "prosperity" was due to the dot.com bubble, which burst and caused all kinds of problems. Your argument that taxing small business owners more so the government can spend more in an irresponsible fashion is idiotic.
Clinton ran a surplus. Bush ran unfunded wars. And no where did anyone mention higher taxes on small business owners (including Obama).
Okay I'm going to break it down for you, Obama's speeches are poll tested, every word it tested in order to get a favorable response. Whenever Obama says "millionaires and billionaires," he is in reality referring to small business owners. His comments about $250,000 a year and up is also a good indicator that he is referring to small business owners.
Inuyasha, $250,000 and up NET taxable income is NOT about small business. It's about NET taxable income, what is left when you report your take away on an individual income tax return. Granted, many small businesses elect to be taxed on the 1040 instead of on a corporate return, but they are quite free to make a different election, if they are realizing profits far above that $250,000 line. Not gross receipts, PROFITS. Regardless, only a FRACTION of returns reporting $250,000 in NET taxable income include a business on the return. Most are wage earners of some stripe or another, believe it or not.
