Knee-Slapper of the Week

Actually, I think this one outdoes MOST of the laughable plans announced by the Obama adminstration.

First, Obama promised more transparency in government. He promised change. Then he nominated tax cheat Tim Geithner to be Secretary of the Treasury. Then he nominated Kathleen Sibelius to be the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Then he nominated Ron Sims as the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. Then he raised taxes on the “top 5%” of the earners in America, bringing the highest tax bracket up to 39.6%.

Today, he’s far outdone himself. Put your drinks down…

He and Tim Geithner have just announced a plan to inject $210 billion into the economy by even more taxes on the corporations in America. How? By overturning one of Bill Clinton’s tax laws that gave a break to companies that made some profit on overseas offices–so long as the money made overseas was re-invested overseas and stayed there. The instant it was brought back to US banks it was subject to taxation.

They’re calling this a loophole, and they say they’ll recoup a lot of money by closing it. It’s supposed to create more jobs, ostensibly by not giving that tax break in any way, shape or form to any corporation–PERIOD. There’s just a few problems with this, not the least of which being that it’s hilarious to see Tim Geithner trying to enforce tax laws when he can’t even follow them.

The fact still remains that it’s still cheaper to hire a group of employees in Bangladesh than it is to hire the same number of people to do the same job in the United States. Making those corporations pay more taxes cannot and will not change that fact. The only way to really, truly encourage companies to keep jobs settled right here at home is to offer incentives–i.e. TAX CUTS FOR WHAT LIBERALS DEEM “THE WEALTHY”–to keep those jobs here. When they’re paying the same amount of taxes on both home and foreign offices, yet it costs twice as much to hire me to do a job as it does to hire Sanji Rosgothra in India (name completely fabricated), where do you think the companies are going to want to go?

I talked to a woman last week who complained that she’d called customer service only to be asked a round of questions she couldn’t understand because of the rep’s heavy Indian accent. In the same breath, this woman said, “boy, I’m so glad Bush isn’t in office anymore, Obama’s gonna fix this mess right up!” I had to hang up quickly because I couldn’t help the hysterical laughter that threatened to escape my throat. Sure, the mess started under Bush, but Obama has only made it worse. Now he’s suggesting that we dump even more taxes on corporations during a damned recession as some kind of twisted cure?

I’ll tell you how this will play out: if Obama gets his wish, and this so-called tax loophole is closed, several businesses will pull up stakes in the US completely and move everything to other countries–countries that are more tax-friendly. Still others will outsource even more jobs to make up for their new losses because of the fact that it’s cheaper to hire people overseas. And whether they stay or they go, prices on everything will go up in reactionary inflation because businesses refuse to eat any losses that they can avoid. That’s not just greed; it’s the free-market system at work.

If this is the start of Obama “spreading the wealth,” then I don’t want to know what the next step is.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Knee-Slapper of the Week

  1. Well, now when liberals whine about us not doing enough to reach out to other countries, we can remind them of this.

    The answer is simple – stop investing in other countries and let them survive without the United States.

    Corporations and VP’s are smart. They aren’t going to even bother now. They will commence business within the United States and ultimately pay the same tax they always paid here and will cut out all overseas activity.

    At least he didn’t raise taxes on corporate profits altogether.

    Overall, the people hurt most by this are the ones we provided opportunity to overseas. They’ll just have to make a different way now.

  2. What you describe Mel is a form of a Unitary tax. Clinton repealed that with some strings attached.

    I grew up in Oregon. Oregon used to have a tax system where any business conducting operations in Oregon was required under Oregon law to pay Oregon tax on its worldwide profits. Never mind if any of those profits came from outside of Oregon. Oregon wanted it all.

    This tax system discouraged businesses from locating in Oregon. In the early 1980’s it was modified. Instead of taxation on worldwide profits, taxation on U.S. profits became the new law. When that happened things started to change. In less than 20 years Intel Corp. became the largest non government employer in the state.

    So Obama can go for this and what you posted is one of many things that will happen.

  3. “Overall, the people hurt most by this are the ones we provided opportunity to overseas. They’ll just have to make a different way now.”

    That’s another consequence of this Obamadumbo plan.

    I’ve been ridiculed many times for the following idea. I do not believe any person should be allowed to run for public office until they have had at last 5 years of running a business they own or managing a business someone else owns.

    Any person who has ever run a business knows about budgets, sales, expenses and how to work within the means of such things. They understand the consequences of borrowing money. They know taxes like all other expenses get passed on in the price of the product or service they sell.

    They also know just because you want something for your business does not mean you always get what you want. Sometimes a business owner can’t afford to buy a new computer system or copy machine or give employees generous bonus payments or raises. Everything has to happen within the means.

    Running a business opens your eyes in a good way.

    Now these assholes who get elected and have no experience running a business don’t understand enough. Too many of them spend, spend and spend like the river will never run dry. This isn’t just Democrats who do this. Republicans do it too.

  4. John in CA – I think your idea about business experience required is an excellent one.

  5. “John in CA – I think your idea about business experience required is an excellent one.”

    Thank you. When it is your money going out the door then an awareness like no other comes your way.

  6. “it’s hilarious to see Tim Geithner trying to enforce tax laws when he can’t even follow them.”

    What I find hilarious is the fact that you call Geithner a tax cheat for being absent minded, yet you’re all up in arms about closing a loophole for the biggest tax cheats on the planet – multi national corporations. I think Obama’s plan is a fine thing, and long overdue. You think this will somehow drive business out of the country, putting more people out of work, I think the exact opposite is the case. Currently, big business gets to use foreign countries as tax havens, avoiding paying their share of taxes. This new plan will discourage that as well as the outsourcing of American jobs. During the Eisenhower Administration, 40% of total tax revenues came from corporations. Today, only 7% of tax revenue comes from corporations, and they use more of the functions of government than anyone else in the county. What the hell is wrong with this picture? And Obama’s plan to do something about that is laughable? What’s laughable is your stance on the subject. Conservatives continue to, in mind boggling fashion, support things that directly go against their own best interests. I just don’t get it…

  7. “During the Eisenhower Administration, 40% of total tax revenues came from corporations. Today, only 7% of tax revenue comes from corporations, and they use more of the functions of government than anyone else in the county.”

    We gone round and round about this before. So why not go again? So, let’s go again but with a difference.

    I own and run a corporation. I manufacture and market clothing that is exclusively sold in Canada. I derive all of my sales and profits from Canada. But I am incorporated in the U.S. All of my manufacturing operations are in Canada.

    Using the current tax law, I don’t have to pay U.S. tax on my profits as long as I keep the money invested outside of the U.S. So, I do that. I take my profits and expand my operations in Canada.

    Now Obamadumbo closes that loophole as Liberals love to call it and I have to pay U.S. tax on my profit. So I pay it and I pass that cost on to the people who buy my clothing. My customers live in Canada. They reimburse me for the U.S. tax I pay.

    Now that is real fair isn’t it? The people of Canada have to pay taxes to a country they do not live in and can’t vote.

    Liberals love to brag about how fair they are and how fair society should be. Tell me what is fair about making foreigners pay American taxes?

  8. John, I guess we have been round and round, but you still don’t get it. Here’s an example that’s closer to how things actually pan out:

    Let’s say a company is making a printer that sells for $100 in the US, and it costs them $10 to manufacture it in China. That company manufactures that printer in China and then sells it to themselves (usually a wholly owned subsidiary) in the US for $90. That’s an $80 profit in China, and a $10 profit in the US, for which it pays taxes on. That $80 profit that’s kept in China is completely untaxed, and that’s totally unfair because that printer is being manufactured by a US company, making a US product that is labeled and printed in English to be sold exclusively on the US market; they just happen to be using Chinese labor. Why don’t you tell me what’s fair about that.

    All I’m saying is that in order for a company to call themselves American, they ought to pay their damn taxes! If your corporation caters exclusively to Canada, incorporate there. Pretty simple solution. Don’t try to find backhanded ways to get around paying taxes.

    The way it stands now, US multinational corporations pay an effective tax rate of 3.2%. That is bull shit. I would love to get away with paying a 3.2% tax rate. I say fuck them, close the loophole, which it is.

  9. You missed one big, glaring problem, and I pointed it out in the original post.

    It costs less than half to hire someone in India to do the job that I do here. Why? Because it costs more to keep me happy. Especially if there are zero incentives for companies to bring more jobs back to America there will be many more jobs lost to outsourcing. I wasn’t saying that this “loophole” was what was keeping the businesses here; you missed that point, too.

    Some kind of incentive ABSOLUTELY MUST BE GIVEN TO CORPORATIONS TO KEEP JOBS IN THE US BEFORE THAT WILL OCCUR. With taxes being raised and tax loopholes being closed, Democrat economics are pushing more business right out of this country.

  10. “I wasn’t saying that this “loophole” was what was keeping the businesses here; you missed that point, too.”

    I wasn’t trying to insinuate that that was your stance. I was saying that it won’t have the opposite effect.

    “Some kind of incentive ABSOLUTELY MUST BE GIVEN TO CORPORATIONS TO KEEP JOBS IN THE US BEFORE THAT WILL OCCUR”

    Or a disincentive to outsourcing. I think that this, coupled with a sensible tariff policy will bring back jobs in a hurry. This is a first step. Unfortunately, I have heard nothing from Obama on the tariff front…

  11. In business–as in any facet of human life–if the only “incentive” you offer is negative, you’re going to get nothing but negative results. There has to be something positive to give them a reason to stop outsourcing. It’s like with a kid; you can’t yell at a kid all the time and expect that they’re going to learn the lesson that way. If you temper it with positive rewards, the kid is far more likely to learn what you’re trying to teach him.

  12. Corporations don’t pay taxes- people do. It’s that simple.

    Small business owners are taxed to death at the personal rate, pay twice the SS of employed people, and create 80% of the jobs in this country through hiring and overhead. Products will become more expensive if companies choose to stay under this plan, and overhead will go up, spending won’t go as far, jobs will be lost- you get the direction I am going in.

    3.2% of the profits of these big companies is an enormous chunk of change, and they don’t owe it to anyone to pay more, and they won’t. High taxation, ridiculous union wages and benefits, and lack of incentives drove business out of this country, and it isn’t coming back.

    It is time to cut the wheat from the chaffe, and turn to what Americans have always done best- innovation, supported by allowing businesses to grow and create jobs and opportunities without gov’t strangling them. It almost seems like this administration WANTS to drive businesses out- they want to be the only game in town. They now own the auto industry, the banking industry, and Congress now has the power to seize ANY publically traded co! The forest for the trees, you know?

  13. “Corporations don’t pay taxes- people do. It’s that simple.”

    And yet, we don’t see anything wrong with this?

    “High taxation, ridiculous union wages and benefits, and lack of incentives drove business out of this country, and it isn’t coming back.”

    Ha, that is laughable. Whatever happened to pride being an incentive to keep jobs in the US? In 1981, 25% of the workforce was unionized; today, it’s less than half that. But, as a result of outsourcing jobs to countries where labor is cheap, our trade deficit continues to grow. There is only one logical answer to why business was “drove out of” the county, and that is greed, pure and simple. High taxation? 3.2% ain’t bad. Unions? Right, unions have been going downhill thanks to Ronald Reagan. And yet, we still see jobs vanish to third world countries. Your attempts at an explanation don’t add up. It’s very simple. Why pay an American to do a job that you can pay someone in an impoverished part of the world to do for 1/8 less?

    The Uruguay round of GATT in 1986 kicked open the door for greed to flourish, and there’s been no looking back. And what really pisses me off is the fact that both major parties have tacitly refused to go anywhere near the subject of raising tariffs back to normal levels. Reasonable tariffs used to be the incentive for keeping jobs in the US. Once that was stripped away, it was only a matter of time for our position to do a total 360. When Reagan came into office, we were the largest exporter of finished goods in the world, and the largest importer of raw materials (not to mention the largest creditor nation on earth). By the time he left office, it was the exact opposite, on all three counts.

    So, forgive me, Raysmom, if I don’t share your views on why business (primarily manufacturing) has abandoned America, because it’s quite clear to me that it was the other way around…

  14. “And yet, we don’t see anything wrong with this?”

    Her point is that – as I argued all along – corporations have the right to adjust prices-per-unit to keep their shareholders and employees happy whenever things like taxes go up.

    Robert, the bottom line will always remain the same: you cannot ask a corporation to pay more than you. It will never work that way, even if we wanted it to.

    No socialism will ever work in this country when you have immigrants coming to this country craving its free-market appeal.

    They don’t come here for socialism, they come here for capitalism.

  15. “Robert, the bottom line will always remain the same: you cannot ask a corporation to pay more than you”

    Well, thank God that attitude has changed, because while you decry socialism, these tax breaks for big business is just that – while the rest of us get left holding the bag. The fact that you’re okay with that is kind of astounding, but even the guy you hate is looking out for you too…

  16. “Her point is that – as I argued all along – corporations have the right to adjust prices-per-unit to keep their shareholders and employees happy whenever things like taxes go up.”

    Wait, are you arguing that if taxes go up on corporations, the price of whatever their goods may be goes up as well? Because that’s just not true. Prices are set in the marketplace by competition among companies, barring, of course, a monopoly exists. The only time costs are passed along to consumers is if the market allows it. Prices have nothing to do with taxes. In point of fact, prices, many time, have nothing to do with cost. When Nike began manufacturing their shoes in China instead of the US, the price of manufacturing dropped through the floor; did their prices go down in relation to that? No, they went up! Taxes are NOT passed along to consumers.

  17. “The only time costs are passed along to consumers is if the market allows it. ”

    If the market doesn’t allow it, companies go bankrupt. People lose jobs when that happens.

    You are right union membership went down under Reagan as it should. Everyone should have safe working conditions. A forty hour work week is fair enough. But, after those two things it all went sideways.

    Unions demanded the benefits of ownership without assuming the risk of ownership. Unions did their very best to shut out potential employees who wanted to work for the employer and not be a union member.

    I have a friend who is a teacher. He is not a member of the union. If if you all want to know what the defintion of aburdity is, then read on:

    My friend is not allowed to go to the school district and negotiate his own compensation package. He is stuck with what the union negotiates. Since he is not a union member, he gets charged a fee by the union for negotiating the salary and benefits he will receive.

    The above is absurd beyond belief. He has to pay for a service (compensation negotiation) that he does not want and he is stuck with the results of that service. He isn’t even allowed to try for a better deal.

    He could change jobs but the school district he goes to will have the same work rules. He could go teach at a private school. But the compensation there is not as good.

    His teachers union thinks it is doing right by him but it is not. By having a one size fits all deal the school district saves a lot of money. Imagine if every teacher decided to negotiate his or her own deal? The district loves the union because the union depresses wages.

  18. “Wait, are you arguing that if taxes go up on corporations, the price of whatever their goods may be goes up as well? Because that’s just not true. ”

    Yes that is precisely true. Robert, the marketplace is all subject to taxation. When the taxes go up on one end, they go up on the other end….one company raises their prices on the east coast, the next company raises their prices on the west coast.

    The idea that you pay more taxes than IBM is preposterous. I realize this will never be a perfect world but the ones we are trying to feed with these extra dollars are going to be dead weight until they start to work it out for themselves and stop making excuses.

    This is what socialists and liberals alike hate about capitalism and free-market (btw you admit free market principles when you’re trying to explain price adjustment for taxation), it is natural and it does not lie to us. It weeds out the weak from the strong. If you work hard and are responsible, you will survive in the capitalist market. If you make excuses and run up your credit, you will not make it.

    Your plan is a reward for failure. It only encourages more of it. The same is true for a young couple on Main Street trying to keep up with the Jones’s as is with a failed executive at AIG. I don’t give a damn what your income level is, you will fail under capitalism if you make bad choices.

    That’s FAIR. Your plan focuses on anyone making over $250K and seeks out to punish them regardless of their intention or the logic of the decisions they made that put them in that position to begin with.

  19. “That’s FAIR. Your plan focuses on anyone making over $250K and seeks out to punish them regardless of their intention or the logic of the decisions they made that put them in that position to begin with. ”

    Liberals are the kings and queens of endless chances. No matter how many times in your life you screw up, the liberals always believe you should get another shot.

    That’s a nobel and expensive action. But that is o.k. with the liberals because so few of them earn $250K or more a year. It’s not their money they are paying in.

  20. “If you work hard and are responsible, you will survive in the capitalist market. ”

    Yes you will. That goes for workers and owners.

    Two weeks ago a computer engineer I know was laid off. He is a technical genius. But, he is not unique. While there are few with his talent, they do exist. He is not intergral to the succeess of his company.

    Lesser talented people at his firm kept their jobs. Some make more than he does. Some make less.

    He lost his job for one reason. He does not bring in new business and his coworkers do. His coworkers effectively pay their own salaries and bonus money by bringing in new business. Assuming your company does not go bankrupt, this is how you keep your job in a bad economy.

  21. Stevie:

    I’d say the “knee slapper of the week” is that you still have your “Palin 2012” banner up.

    Cuntry First!!

  22. Anonymous,

    I’d say the “knee slapper of the week” is that you – like every other liberal – continue to notice the “Palin 2012” banner that’s still up.

    And boy, do you ever notice it. As Ann Coulter said, the only thing to dislike about Sarah Palin is that she might surpass Ann in drawing more hate from the left.

    The best candidate for the country is always the one that makes the left’s hate meter soar.

  23. “If the market doesn’t allow it, companies go bankrupt. People lose jobs when that happens.”

    Show me one time when either of those things happened. To the best of my knowledge, no business went bankrupt solely because of their taxes going up, and no companies have ever passed their tax burden to consumers.

    “You are right union membership went down under Reagan as it should.”

    Yeah, you’re right. The people who work the hardest in this country don’t deserve fair wages, they don’t deserve a say in the bargaining process at all. Tell me John, why is it that you think it’s fair for a company to hold all the power while the workers are treated like serfs? Common sense tells us that with labor being superior to capitol, that labor should, at the very least, have equal power. Unions create some sort of balance in the workplace, and apparently you’re opposed to that balance for some reason…

    “Unions demanded the benefits of ownership without assuming the risk of ownership”

    Does labor not precede capitol? The business rests as much on the shoulders of labor as it does on management. If either goes under, it takes the other with it. And you can argue the dollar sign aspect of it, but as a business, as with an engine, if all parts aren’t functioning smoothly, you run into problems. One can’t operate without the other.

    “Since he is not a union member, he gets charged a fee by the union for negotiating the salary and benefits he will receive.”

    you just made my point for me. Salary and benefits. You’ve already conceded that your friend would make less money and most likely have shitty benefits as a non union member. Unions negotiate better wages because there’s power in numbers. Let your friend go somewhere else, he’ll find out the hard way just how fucked he can get when no one’s fighting for him…

    “The district loves the union because the union depresses wages.”

    Really? So why is it that union wages are always better than non union wages? You’re completely backwards (as usual) on this subject. I find it easy to think of it this way: a corporation is a kingdom. They set the rules, and you either live with them, or you’re gone. A union is a democracy. The union holds elections to decide their leadership, and then a consensus is formed and negotiations can begin. It’s good to see which side you’ve planted your flag on…

  24. “The best candidate for the country is always the one that makes the left’s hate meter soar”

    Absolutely!! We can only pray that Sarah “The Alaskan Dynamo” receives the Republican nomination. Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue? Conversations about the Rapture, Oxycontin, redneck relatives, abstinence, six colleges to get a Sports Journalism degree, Katie Couric, Putin rearing his head, Russia’s visibility from the back porch, Tina Fey, snow machines, illicit affairs with spouse’s business partners, Senate procedure, no passport for 40+ years, Africa’s status as a continent, Joe the Plumber, alleged energy expertise, the First Dude, shopping sprees at Saks, Reverend Muthee and witchcraft, Drill Baby Drill, the Bush doctrine, job creation shoring up the economy as it relates to health care and trade, Mavericky teams, getting back to ya on McCain’s accomplishments, the Bridge to Nowhere, and on and on!!!

    This moron is the gift that keeps on giving!!!

  25. “Yes that is precisely true. Robert, the marketplace is all subject to taxation. When the taxes go up on one end, they go up on the other end….one company raises their prices on the east coast, the next company raises their prices on the west coast.”

    Steve, what you’re not understanding is that competition sets the price, not taxes. Like I’ve said before, prove to me that prices are influenced by tax policy. Over the years, corporate tax rates have continued to fall, and prices have continued to rise. Even adjusting for inflation, it’s a ridiculous trend that has no basis in the tax policy. What you’re arguing simply can’t be proven, because that’s not the case…

    “The idea that you pay more taxes than IBM is preposterous”

    Yeah, and the reality of it is even more preposterous. Sure, they pay exponentially more than me in dollars, but not in terms of percentage. That ought to be a fucking crime.

    “I realize this will never be a perfect world but the ones we are trying to feed with these extra dollars are going to be dead weight until they start to work it out for themselves and stop making excuses.”

    I’m sorry, but are you honestly trying to make a correlation of corporate tax breaks with people who, in your opinion, aren’t pulling their own weight? You must have lost your mind, because those are the people who are suffering while big business gets a free pass. Greenspan was just as much off his rocker when he claimed that big business is a persecuted minority. You know, for a minority, they sure hold a lot of fucking power…

    “btw you admit free market principles when you’re trying to explain price adjustment for taxation”

    No, I didn’t, you’re just too ignorant to see that. I admit there is a marketplace, not a FREE market. You can’t call it free or demand laissez faire by the government when the very institution of government created the conditions in which it is allowed to exist.

    “If you work hard and are responsible, you will survive in the capitalist market. If you make excuses and run up your credit, you will not make it.”

    What? How on earth do you think the “capitalist” system has been kept afloat for the last 28 years? We were absolutely encouraged to live on credit (thank you, Mr. Reagan), and we learned by watching the example government set for us by borrowing our way into blissful oblivion (thank you again, Mr. Reagan). We’ve come to rely on the financial sector to make our economy look good, when in reality, it’s in a heap of trouble. That is not capitalism, Steve, it’s monetarism. It’s moving money around in circles while you extol the virtues of the very device that is killing us. It’s absolutely insane!

    “Your plan is a reward for failure. It only encourages more of it”

    Says the guy who wants to throw more tax breaks at the rich and big business, who’ve done exactly what for us?

    “Your plan focuses on anyone making over $250K and seeks out to punish them regardless of their intention or the logic of the decisions they made that put them in that position to begin with.”

    It’s punishment to make sure those at the top pay their fair share? Are you nuts? Taxes are the price of admission to a civil society. Ever heard that, Steve? It’s very much true. Each and every day, we all enjoy the fruits of government’s labor. We drive down paved roads, we call the police when we’re in trouble, we call the fire department when we see smoke, we use every legal resource we can when someone attempts to wrong us. These, along with clean water and food that’s safe to eat, are all part of the commons. We the People collectively own these things, yet the rich become rich and maintain that wealth by using more of the commons than you or I. Most of us will never use the court system more than once or twice, yet they use it almost seamlessly, week after week, year after year, decade after decade. They transport their cheesy wares, whatever they may be, using interstate highways more times in a year than we ever get to in five lifetimes. And for you to sit there and call that punishment is why I’ve called you a freeloader in the past. You want the rich and big business to use these things more than anyone else, yet pay the least. Something for (damn near) nothing. The mantra of the conservatives. And that to you is fair…

  26. “The best candidate for the country is always the one that makes the left’s hate meter soar.”

    So much for moderation. Have fun losing in 2012. But hey, you can always blame the media again, right?

  27. “This moron is the gift that keeps on giving!!!”

    She really is. I especially love that Steve carries this notion that liberals are afraid of her. I think Bill Maher said it best when he said “80% of republicans want her to lead the republican party, and 100% of democrats want her to lead the republican party”

  28. “Liberals are the kings and queens of endless chances. No matter how many times in your life you screw up, the liberals always believe you should get another shot.”

    If that were true, we’d have a republican president right now…

  29. “But that is o.k. with the liberals because so few of them earn $250K or more a year”

    And you know this how? That’s like saying so few conservatives aren’t child molesters…

  30. “And you know this how? That’s like saying so few conservatives aren’t child molesters…”

    In my line of work I deal with wealthy people. I have yet to meet one that is a Democrat. If they were Democrat they would not be wealthy unless they inherited it from their dead Republican grandfather or married into it.

  31. “In my line of work I deal with wealthy people. I have yet to meet one that is a Democrat.”

    And what does that say about your position? Most people aren’t wealthy, hence, you fight for the few, at the cost of many. You are on the wrong side of just about every issue I’ve ever discussed with you. Sadly, I think that’s fine with you…

  32. “Each and every day, we all enjoy the fruits of government’s labor. We drive down paved roads, we call the police when we’re in trouble, we call the fire department when we see smoke, we use every legal resource we can when someone attempts to wrong us. These, along with clean water and food that’s safe to eat, are all part of the commons. We the People collectively own these things, yet the rich become rich and maintain that wealth by using more of the commons than you or I. ”

    My, my, my. So it is a use it and pay for it system eh? Those that use it often should pay more for it.

    So I suppose the opposite is true, those that do not pay for it should not get to use it?

    If someone is making minimum wage, married and has two kids then that person won’t have an income tax. So that person should not have any share in the Commons because that person does not pay for it.

    I can live with that. In fact that is how it should be. I am fine with paying my share. What I am not fine with is paying the share of someone else.

  33. “If that were true, we’d have a republican president right now…”

    Nobody ever said John McCain was a Republican.

    “So much for moderation. Have fun losing in 2012. But hey, you can always blame the media again, right?”

    We still have to get past 2010 Congressionals. We cannot have all the fun with you right away….and honestly, it’s perfect fun watching Nancy and the others pretend that they knew nothing of waterboarding when we now know they did. It’s been a blast watching Obama scratch your head and tell you that waterboarding is torture (while simultaneously comparing what was done at Guantanamo to the Japanese filling stomachs up with water until a prisoner’s bowels exploded) while he refuses to prosecute anyone or allow us to have a “truth commission” with regard to how information was gathered.

    Americans are still watching their 401K’s drop, I just scored a massive deal on a piece of Real Estate by taking advantage of the buyer’s market, and the seller isn’t quite so happy. Jobs are still being lost. Obama predicts last week that Chrysler will not go bankrupt, then they go bankrupt the next day.

    As John and I have argued (and as Reagan stood for), people like us will be just fine. Even though all of Obama’s followers are going to be the ones to suffer, we’ll still feel sorry for them when its over.

    Not one of your tax arguments continues to hold up seeings as you have a very poor knowledge of the IRC. Facts are facts and history proves the cycle of what happens when taxes soar on anyone.

    The Republican party was mistaken to run who they thought was a “moderate.” Being a war hero did not help Bob Dole, it did not help GHW Bush in his second election, nor did it help the last nitwit we ran to head the conservative party of this country. Hell, it didn’t even help you guys when you ran a phony one in 2004.

    This is why liberals now embrace Colin Powell, John McCain, Meghan McCain, etc….whenever they come out telling Americans that the trouble with conservatives is that they need to be less conservative.

    Yes, Sarah Palin frightens the left. Unlike McCain or Obama, Palin didn’t have to waste time pretending to be our friends. Unlike McCain and Obama, Palin was the only one of the three who had an income that fell below the dreaded $250K. Palin was the only one who got involved into politics because she didn’t like the way her taxes were being spent.

    What you and the NY Times call “experience” is not the kind of “experience” Palin would want. Since Obama was so experienced at back-sratching with Tony Rezko, he already knew the self-gain of selling out a majority and catering to one special interest.

    As I stated, there was no doubt in my mind that these years would have been rotten under McCain. But the good news is, these policies are happening under your watch.

    We conservatives have the backbones to survive the free market, something liberals cannot ever do – do you really think a few temporary Bills that are going to make Obama’s own supporters suffer the most are things we cannot handle or sustain?

    Puleeeese.

    Everytime Palin’s name is mentioned, we’ll keep our ears out for another warning that our party needs to be more liberal to survive. Then we’ll run a true conservative anyway. Whether it be Sarah or any other true-talker, it’ll be great.

    But please, don’t let take away our fun in 2010 first.

  34. “And what does that say about your position? Most people aren’t wealthy, hence, you fight for the few, at the cost of many. ”

    I work in real estate management. My clients own real estate. Our firm manages it for them. My clients worked for what the have. Nobody handed it to them.

    Form a tax standpoint we have people who take care of that. I suppose they fight for the few at the cost of many.

    I don’t work the tax side of it. But I am very aware of how those laws pertain to our profession. Other than the section 1031 exchange, the tax benefits of rental real estate are erased under the Passive Loss rules. Very few of my clients derive immeidate tax benefits from the properties they own. They get their payback down the road. So, they lend the government money with zero percent interest with an undetermined repayment date. I rarely hear Liberals bitching about that.

  35. Stevie, you are beyond deluded. What will you do when:

    1) The Republicans lose more seats in 2010.

    2) Obama is reelected in 2012.

    3) Sarah Palin goes down in flames and is exposed as an even bigger fraud assuming she decides to run. Whether it’s in the Repub primaries or in the General doesn’t matter to me, she’ll be an even bigger joke.

    What WILL you do then?

  36. “As John and I have argued (and as Reagan stood for), people like us will be just fine. Even though all of Obama’s followers are going to be the ones to suffer, we’ll still feel sorry for them when its over. ”

    Yes Steve I will feel sorry for them too. I have compassion. But I will say I told you so at least a dozens times and perhaps more. Sometimes a guy just can’t resist.

    “I just scored a massive deal on a piece of Real Estate by taking advantage of the buyer’s market, and the seller isn’t quite so happy.”

    Did you save the seller from deeper losses? Did you save his credit rating? Did you take a problem off his back? He should be kissing your feet because you stopped the bleeding.

  37. “Those that use it often should pay more for it.”

    Absolutely. That’s called fairness. This isn’t an all you can eat buffet, these things require upkeep and maintenance.

    “So I suppose the opposite is true, those that do not pay for it should not get to use it?”

    Like who, children? You’re wandering into ridiculous territory.

    “If someone is making minimum wage, married and has two kids then that person won’t have an income tax. So that person should not have any share in the Commons because that person does not pay for it.”

    Just because there is no income tax doesn’t mean they don’t pay. There’s a litany of other taxes that do get paid, and I’m pretty sure you know that. Why is it okay for me to pay more in taxes than most corporations in this country, when they use far more of the commons than I do?

    “I am fine with paying my share. What I am not fine with is paying the share of someone else.”

    Sure you are. You’ve argued in this very forum for the massive tax beaks and tax havens for the rich and big business. Guess who picks up the slack? Those who can’t afford it and have no business paying for those thieves and con artists in the first place. How the fuck do you think Reagan paid for his tax cuts for the rich? By stealing from the poor. You want to bitch about socialism, there’s your socialism. Raising payroll taxes on the middle class and the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich. Funny how it’s only socialism and wealth redistribution when it hits the rich…

  38. “Nobody ever said John McCain was a Republican.”

    Don’t be an idiot. I know that sounds like a tall order, but just try to process what it is you’re going to type before those stubby fingers start flying.

    “and honestly, it’s perfect fun watching Nancy and the others pretend that they knew nothing of waterboarding when we now know they did”

    Wait a sec, I thought we didn’t torture, now you get to reframe the debate to cast aspersions on a democrat. That’s hilarious. Why go after Pelosi? Just yesterday, the prince of darkness said that Bush authorized it. You people are a hoot. Anything to avoid accountability, eh?

    “It’s been a blast watching Obama scratch your head and tell you that waterboarding is torture (while simultaneously comparing what was done at Guantanamo to the Japanese filling stomachs up with water until a prisoner’s bowels exploded) while he refuses to prosecute anyone or allow us to have a “truth commission” with regard to how information was gathered.”

    It’s also been a blast watching you slugs squirm around, while people like Condi Rice get bested by not only college students, but fucking fourth graders. It’s been a blast seeing you people scramble for cover, first denying, then trying to pass the buck to Pelosi. But let’s not forget that Obama doesn’t get to decide who, if anyone, gets prosecuted. That’s the role of the Justice Department. I realize that may be a novel concept for conservatives, for things to be decided through proper channels, but there’s a lot of shit for Eric Holder to sift through, and a free pass for the CIA does not mean a free pass for all.

    “As John and I have argued (and as Reagan stood for), people like us will be just fine”

    Right, I forgot about that bizzaro world principle that says those who tanked the economy and cheered the policies that were responsible for it will somehow be spared. If people like you and John will survive, it will be because you know how to take advantage of people and avoid accountability. You posture like you’re upset about AIG and bailouts in one breath, then wholeheartedly defend the “free market” policies that allowed them to dig their own graves, as well as their many employees, in the next. You do what cons do, Steve, and that is look out for number one, and everyone else can fuck off. It amazes me that you put the energy into pretending this isn’t the case. Damn near every statement you make belies this attitude.

    “Even though all of Obama’s followers are going to be the ones to suffer, we’ll still feel sorry for them when its over.”

    You won’t feel sorry for anyone, especially because you know that the majority of folks who aren’t Obama’s “followers” are the wealthy, and they always come out just fine. It’s like the Titanic, all the rich people got the life boats and the poor, well, who cares about them?

    “Not one of your tax arguments continues to hold up seeings as you have a very poor knowledge of the IRC. Facts are facts and history proves the cycle of what happens when taxes soar on anyone.”

    Yeah, oddly enough, you failed to meet my challenge. I asked you to give me an instance that could support your claims, and you can’t even manage to do that. If taxes were to “soar” on you, could you pass that burden to someone else? Didn’t think so.

    “The Republican party was mistaken to run who they thought was a “moderate.”

    The more you say that, the more I think of the miniscule 21% of people who are not embarrassed to admit that they are republicans. It makes me think of John Boner, the most unpopular politician in the country. It makes me think of the ousting you just had in November BECAUSE of a conservative president. Cry all you like, Stevie, no one can hear you…

    “Yes, Sarah Palin frightens the left.”

    Ha! So why is that every liberal you can think of is aching for her to run? I hope to GOD that she runs, I really do. Anonymous put together a great short list of reasons that the American people would NEVER vote for a dolt like that. I just think it’s awesome that this is the last bastion of conservatism, this is the basket you’re putting your eggs in. She is the best you could come up with! I’d feel sorry for you if you didn’t just spend the better part of a decade destroying the country.

    “Unlike McCain or Obama, Palin didn’t have to waste time pretending to be our friends”

    Really? ‘Cause she sure winked at me an awful lot…

    “he already knew the self-gain of selling out a majority and catering to one special interest.”

    Whoa, you just described the republican party platform! Say, did they ever do a damn thing to outlaw abortion?

    “We conservatives have the backbones to survive the free market, something liberals cannot ever do”

    Look at that, you just inadvertently admitted that the “free” market is something that requires surviving. Kind of like a car crash.

    “do you really think a few temporary Bills that are going to make Obama’s own supporters suffer the most are things we cannot handle or sustain?”

    So, things that help people are things that you would need to “handle or sustain”… I don’t know if it will help you do either, but watching you sissies bitch for the next four years will be highly satisfying. It’s like watching a kid getting rescued from a raging river, only to have the kid refuse the life ring. If you want to drown, then by all means…

    “But please, don’t let take away our fun in 2010 first.”

    Okay, but remember you said the same thing a year ago, and you got crushed. All I can say is, if you people persist in being the party of no, don’t be surprised when the public says the same thing to your ridiculous shell of a party.

  39. “He should be kissing your feet because you stopped the bleeding.”

    That’s funny that you say that, while bashing Obama…

  40. “Sure you are. You’ve argued in this very forum for the massive tax beaks and tax havens for the rich and big business. Guess who picks up the slack? Those who can’t afford it and have no business paying for those thieves and con artists in the first place. How the fuck do you think Reagan paid for his tax cuts for the rich? By stealing from the poor. You want to bitch about socialism, there’s your socialism. Raising payroll taxes on the middle class and the poor to fund tax cuts for the rich. Funny how it’s only socialism and wealth redistribution when it hits the rich…”

    Fairness is always in the eye of the beholder. If I buy stock in Chevron with money I’ve already paid taxes on then why are my capital gains taxed at all? I already paid tax on that money when I bought the stock.

    When I put money into my savings account I’ve already paid taxes on that too. Why is the interest I earn on that balance taxed?

    Finally when the Tax Reform Act of 1986 was passed, the Democrats controlled the House. They could have killed it. They did not. Those so called protectors of the middle class did not protect the middle class. You sure love to blame Reagan but as I remember the history he did not rule by decree.

  41. “That’s funny that you say that, while bashing Obama…”

    Steve ended that man’s trouble. Obama has put a bandage on a would that won’t heal. Obama has done nothing to solve the problem. He’s wrapped the wound in more gauze. The wound still bleeds.

    It’s human nature to perform at the lowest level when that level is viable. But when a President makes that lowest level non-viable, then people perform at the lowest viable level.

    With regards to the mortgage problem, make the level for non performance even more non-viable than it is now. Those mortgage payments will start rolling in when the lowest alternative is non-viable. This is how you heal the wound.

  42. “If I buy stock in Chevron with money I’ve already paid taxes on then why are my capital gains taxed at all? “

    Because it’s a source of income. If it were a payroll check, your employer would have been taxed. I think a better question is, why are capital gains for the rich only taxed at 15%, when the average Joe pays more than that in income tax? It’s all income, and should be taxed as such.

    “You sure love to blame Reagan but as I remember the history he did not rule by decree.”

    Hence the term, Reagan democrat. There’s no denying that a lot of people were swindled; politicians weren’t immune to it. A lot of them drank the Kool-Aid. But if my memory serves me correctly, the number of people who think like that today is quite small…

  43. “Hence the term, Reagan democrat. There’s no denying that a lot of people were swindled; politicians weren’t immune to it. A lot of them drank the Kool-Aid. But if my memory serves me correctly, the number of people who think like that today is quite small…”

    Swindle? What swindle? The Tax Reform Act (TRA 1986) passed when I was in college. It was a big part of the business school course content.

    TRA 1986 was revenue neutral. It did not increase nor decrease the total amount of tax collected. What it did do is change the pots of money the tax revenue comes from. More money was pulled from Pot A instead of Pot B. But the total money pulled from both Pots added up to the amount under the old tax system.

    The people who voted for TRA 1986 knew this. There was no swindle. Sure they can look back on it now and call it a bad move. But they don’t have to do that. They knew it was a bad move back then if they bothered to read the bill.

  44. “Swindle? What swindle?”

    Um, that whole stealing from the poor thing. This was the only time in history that the top tax bracket fell while the bottom one simultaneously rose. It’s really quite simple; steal from the poor to give to the rich. It’s like Robin Hood in reverse…

  45. “Um, that whole stealing from the poor thing. This was the only time in history that the top tax bracket fell while the bottom one simultaneously rose. It’s really quite simple; steal from the poor to give to the rich. It’s like Robin Hood in reverse…”

    If you know you are being swindled then you are not being swindled.

    If a senator or congressman was aware of how TRA 1986 works and voted Yes, then they were not swindled.

    As for the public, if any person was aware of how TRA 1986 works and supported it, then no swindle.

    If people did not bother to learn about this Bill that became law, then that is their tough luck. We can’t always protect people from their lack of action.

    If people were aware TRA 1986 was a bad Bill and took action to defeat it, then they are on the losing side which is part of how democracy works. They weren’t swindled either.

    As much as you want this to be a swindle, it is not one. In your opinion TRA 1986 is a bad law. In the opinions of other people it is not. But TRA 1986 is not a swindle.

  46. “If you know you are being swindled then you are not being swindled.”

    I’m sure that’s a big comfort to the millions of people who got screwed over because their representatives in government failed to act. The people got swindled, John, regardless of how the Congress voted. The people did not get to vote on this tax hike. If they did, I’m sure it would never have passed.

    “If people did not bother to learn about this Bill that became law, then that is their tough luck”

    Oh, well, if you don’t know that you have cancer, tough shit, right?

    “As much as you want this to be a swindle, it is not one”

    It most certainly is. The working class in this country had no say in whether or not their payroll taxes would raise to fund bullshit tax cuts for the already wealthy. Swindle, pure and simple.

  47. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/23408.html

    Robert if you scroll down to the bottom of this link something very interesting pops up.

    In 1980 the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 34.47%. The bottom 50% paid an average rate of 6.1%.

    In 2006 the top 1% paid an average tax rate of 22.79%. The bottom 50% paid an average rate of 3.01%.

    So in 26 years the top 1% saw there tax rate decline by 33.9%. The bottom 50% saw their tax rate decline by 50.7%.

    If you look at 1987 then you will see across the income strata everyone’s average tax rate went down.

    You call this a swindle? What swindle? Everyone benefitted. The poor benefitted the most. Their tax rates went down by 50.7%.

    “The working class in this country had no say in whether or not their payroll taxes would raise to fund bullshit tax cuts for the already wealthy. Swindle, pure and simple.”

    Oh so the working class did not have the ability to write letters to their congressman and senators voicing opposition to this Bill?

    The working class did not have the power to vote out the people who voted for this Bill and vote in people who would repeal it?

    Explain to me what you mean by no say? My telephone service did not stop when the Social Security reforms under Reagan were enacted. I did not suffer from accute illiteracy. The postal service did not shut down. Elections were not suspended after that law was passed. No say? Since when?

    As much as you’d love to protect people from their political ignorance and apathy, you can’t, I can’t and no one can.

  48. “You call this a swindle? What swindle? Everyone benefitted. The poor benefitted the most. Their tax rates went down by 50.7%.”

    I’m talking about PAYROLL taxes, John. Payroll taxes on the working class quadrupled. That hurt the poor, not helped them. He also raised gasoline taxes by $50 billion over 3 years. These tax hikes, for many, undid any benefit they received from income tax cuts.

    “Oh so the working class did not have the ability to write letters to their congressman and senators voicing opposition to this Bill?”

    No, not if they were kept in the dark about it, which I guarantee you, they were.

    “Explain to me what you mean by no say? ”

    Do you honestly believe that this tax hike was advertised? You think poor constituents in any given district and state gave their approval of this? Don’t be ridiculous.

    “No say? Since when?”

    Since it was an amendment to social security, and as such, not highly advertised. And you’re only focusing on one aspect of Reagan’s tax policy. Let’s not forget he raised taxes in six of the eight years he was in office. 1983 was when he raised the payroll taxes on those who could least afford them.

  49. In 1980 the maximum wages that were subject to Social Security were $25,900. Minimum wage was about $3.35 per hour. So a full time employed minimum wage earned never earned enough to go over $25,900.

    In 1985 the maximum wages that were subject to Social Security were $39,600. Again a minimum wage worker would not exceed that amount either.

    In 1990 the maximum amount was $51,300. Once again a minimum wage worker would not earn that much in a year.

    In 2000 it was $76,200 and in 2008 it was $102,000.

    The poor got swindled? Again, no.

    You sure have this strong love for people who saw their income taxes go down by 50% and their social security taxes (often their only retirement plan) change in ways that only benefits them. Would you have preferred in 1983 that the Federal government let the system go bankrupt and end it for good?

    I don’t know what income strata you define as working class. That too is a matter of debate. But I see it working class as a group of people who never would have earned more than the maximum social security limit in any year. Those people haven’t been hurt at all. Those that have been hurt haven’t ended up in the poor house from it.

    While I am here consider this. I worked with a guy. His mom was on Social Security. She received benefits of about $1,500 per month. If she did not receive those benefits then he would be stuck with providing nearly all of her financial support. Becuase of Social Security he did not have to support her.

    He was thankful he wasn’t carrying that financial load . The higher Social Security taxes he paid were more than offset by what his mom received each month. At $1,500 per month, his mom was pulling in $18,000 per year. His Social Security taxes were nowhere near that. Even the Reagan increases were nowhere in the neighborhood of $18,000.

  50. John, I don’t know what point you’re trying to make by giving me Social Security caps. As a matter of fact, all you’re proving is that once more, the wealthy get to skate by. After $91,000 (or I guess it’s $102,000 now), there is no tax levied. I guarantee that if that cap were lifted, any problem social security may have had will be solved in one day.

    Back to my original point, the caps have nothing to do with the rates that were paid. the poor got screwed because their payroll taxes quadrupled under Reagan. How you fail to see that as being swindled is beyond me.

    “You sure have this strong love for people who saw their income taxes go down by 50% and their social security taxes (often their only retirement plan) change in ways that only benefits them. Would you have preferred in 1983 that the Federal government let the system go bankrupt and end it for good?”

    Well, one, their social security taxes went up, significantly, so it did not benefit them. And two, go through all of Reagan’s tax restructuring. You’ll find that in 1983, he reversed 1/3 of the tax cuts he implemented in 1981, because he knew that it would lead to a bigger deficit, which it did. He then raised taxes in 1983, 1984, and 1985. Just not on your precious rich. He hit the working poor, and oddly enough, corporations.

    “Those that have been hurt haven’t ended up in the poor house from it.”

    Are you kidding me? Being poor was almost a trend in the 80’s. Reagan’s tax policies, coupled with rapidly declining wages, sent people to the poor house on a regular basis. I know more than a few people who spent that decade in misery, and let’s just say they’re not sad that that man is dead.

    I don’t appreciate the example you gave of the guy you worked with. You know as well as I do that the number of people paying into Social Security that are actually collecting it is miniscule. You managed to find an anomaly and drag it out like it’s an every day occurrence. I can find at least one person who has survived being struck by lightning…

  51. “I don’t appreciate the example you gave of the guy you worked with. You know as well as I do that the number of people paying into Social Security that are actually collecting it is miniscule. ”

    You don’t appreciate anything unless it is a single mom with six kids by four different guys who lines up for that welfare check.

    No wait, you also like people who quit high school, piss their lives away, and expect everyone else to pay for those choices.

    You are also a fan of people who flip burgers, make it a career, and expect to get paid as much money as Donald Trump.

    I also know you hate people who work hard, learn a skill, accumulate wealth to one degree or another and have the audacity to want to keep more of what they earned. The nerve of such people.

  52. “You don’t appreciate anything unless it is a single mom with six kids by four different guys who lines up for that welfare check.”

    Ooh, cat’s got claws, eh?

    That’s fine, but it should be pointed out that you don’t appreciate anything unless it’s a greedy scumbag who would cut his own mother’s throat for a buck.

    No wait, you’re probably also a fan of Monsanto patenting seeds and hauling poor farmers into court for their crops being cross pollenated due to wind.

    Or how about Nestle, who privatized the water supply in Chile, including rain water? It only took a bloody revolt to get their own goddamn resource back.

    You’re also a fan of people who use offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share while they’re also getting huge tax breaks, while the burger flippers in this country pay a higher tax rate than the average US multi national corporation.

    You, John, hate anyone who struggles and works hard to make an honest living, while pissing and moaning about a fucking 3.2% tax rate. How’s that for welfare, you fucking mooch?

  53. “You, John, hate anyone who struggles and works hard to make an honest living, while pissing and moaning about a fucking 3.2% tax rate. How’s that for welfare, you fucking mooch?”

    3.2% tax rate? I wish.

    Mooch? Never.

    Nestle? Get mad at the government of Chile for signing the deal.

    Cut my mom’s throat to make a buck? Only if she got in my way.

    Offshore tax havens? As long as they are legal under the Code of Internal Revenue.

    Sue farmers who contaminate my crops? You bet. The law doesn’t allow you to destroy, deface or contaminate the property of others.

    If you had an all organic farm next to my non organic farm then shouldn’t you be able to sue me if my pesticide residue blows or runs off via the wind/rain onto your crops? Rain runoff is natural. The wind is natural. Using pesticides is a long accepted practice of agriculture.

    Yeah I do have claws. I did not get what I have by sitting on my ass and waiting for people to give to me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s