Rebel, do you work?

If so, did you see your paychecks increase last year without your wages going up?

That was the tax cut part of the stimulus.

BTW, that is some douche's opinion. It's a complete crock.

(08-05-2011 12:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, that is some ******'s opinion. It's a complete crock.

See above Rebel.

(08-05-2011 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, do you work?

If so, did you see your paychecks increase last year without your wages going up?

That was the tax cut part of the stimulus.

No, I didn't see anything go up, aside from my raise.

(08-05-2011 12:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:54 PM)Rebel Wrote:  BTW, that is some ******'s opinion. It's a complete crock.

See above Rebel.

You see above.

...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

(08-05-2011 12:53 PM)Rebel Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:53 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:51 PM)Rebel Wrote:  A stimulus isn't a tax cut.

You're an idiot. The stimulus package was comprised of new spending and tax cuts to the tune of $282 billion.

Is it working? No?

Now who's the idiot.

Quit changing the damned subject and admit you are ******* wrong!

I don't give a flying **** if it worked. The FACT is that taxes were cut.

And if it didn't work that just means that tax cuts don't help the economy then do they?

New Withholding Tables Now Available on IRS.gov; Most Workers Will See Bigger Paychecks this Spring

(08-05-2011 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

1. Tax cuts don't help the economy like you think.
2. The spending in the stimulus was not enough and the money spent by the states was not regulated enough to make sure it went directly to infrastructure spending.

Tax cuts DO help the economy. They got us on track after a down economy in the beginning of this decade, got us on task in the 80's, and got us on track under Kennedy. As for stimulus "not being enough", you're fuken smoking crack if you think we should have thrown even more money at a problem created by governmental involvement to begin with.

Also, if I see a 2$ tax decrease, but my GDamn power shoots up 10% due to the power company having to comply with idiot's Cap and Trade BS, that's not a f'n benefit to me. That's just one example of how this fool is gaming the system over the American people.

(08-05-2011 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

1. Tax cuts don't help the economy like you think.
2. The spending in the stimulus was not enough and the money spent by the states was not regulated enough to make sure it went directly to infrastructure spending.

The majority of the stimulus was not designed for infrastructure and other tangible products. It it had been, the stimulus may have actually worked. The problem was the majority of the stimulus went to state and local governments to prop them up. It was designed to save gov't jobs. Although jobs like teachers, firefighters and policemen are important, they do not translate into immediate tangible benefits to the economy like private sector jobs do.

(08-05-2011 12:47 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Niner, how are increased medicare taxes on individuals making in excess of $250,000 (or whatever the threshold is) a business tax increase?

Because the majority of small businesses, because they are sub-chapter S corporations, are hit by this tax. Income these businesses take in is taxed to the owners as individual income. Meaning they file an individual return on their business, not a corporate one. Millions of small business owners make 250k or more in their business. Therefore when you raise that medicare tax you are taxing a small business.

Quote:I never said (or meant to imply) that Obama hasn't raised any taxes...he has (mostly future ones included in Obamacare) but his cuts to individual taxes have been immediate and not in dispute...or do you still maintain that there were not tax cuts in the stimulus package?

Where did I claim there were no tax cuts in the stimulus package? In fact I believe I stated the exact opposite when I pointed out said tax cuts in the form of payroll tax holidays were set to expire at the end of the year. Thanks though for posting links attempting to contradict a claim I never made.

Quote:And we can go round and round all you want, but it is a FACT that the Bush tax cuts expired on 12/31/10. The tax legislation for the year beginning 1/1/11 WAS signed into law by President Obama. And believe me, I am none to pleased about him doing so!

Then by all means, feel free to cut a check to the treasury for the increased amount you feel you should be paying. How much more will you be giving out of curiosity?

(08-05-2011 12:54 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Rebel, do you work?

If so, did you see your paychecks increase last year without your wages going up?

That was the tax cut part of the stimulus.

This "massive" tax decrease yielded about $34 a month to the average worker. It was $400 to individuals.

Wow, what a boon to the american worker. I can't believe that extra $34 a month didn't send the economy into overdrive.

(08-05-2011 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

1. Tax cuts don't help the economy like you think.
2. The spending in the stimulus was not enough and the money spent by the states was not regulated enough to make sure it went directly to infrastructure spending.

Then how do you feel about my above post detailing how regulation (taxes) are crippling the economy?

I never said that was a "massive" tax decrease. And I posted this last week Niner, the average small business makes no where near $250,000. In fact, only two or three of the classes of small business made that much. I believe the average small business made around $100,000.

Correction, 4 of the classes of small businesses per the IRS made more than $250,000 a year in 2007...and I would have to assume these figures are much lower now:

(08-05-2011 01:05 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

1. Tax cuts don't help the economy like you think.
2. The spending in the stimulus was not enough and the money spent by the states was not regulated enough to make sure it went directly to infrastructure spending.

The majority of the stimulus was not designed for infrastructure and other tangible products. It it had been, the stimulus may have actually worked. The problem was the majority of the stimulus went to state and local governments to prop them up. It was designed to save gov't jobs. Although jobs like teachers, firefighters and policemen are important, they do not translate into immediate tangible benefits to the economy like private sector jobs do.

I totally agree.

And people can piss and moan all they want about the stimulus money, but it was taxpayer dollars that the government put directly back into the economy thru wages, etc. The economy without a doubt would have been impacted negatively without this money.

(08-05-2011 12:58 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(08-05-2011 12:56 PM)Rebel Wrote:  ...and moonbats, if you idiots are SO DAMNED RIGHT in your economic thinking, just a question for you,



WHY ISN'T IT WORKING!?

1. Tax cuts don't help the economy like you think.
2. The spending in the stimulus was not enough and the money spent by the states was not regulated enough to make sure it went directly to infrastructure spending.

As a proud conservative, a long time ago I came to the conclusion that the morally right thing to do was to support equal rights for homosexuals. It actually wasn't a hard decision to be honest, as before I was more a "whatever" type of guy in that regard. It really doesn't make me a lesser conservative, or embarrassed of my change in attitude.

My point is that even as a lefty, it is OK if you come out and say that Keynesian economics is a failure. It doesn't make you less of a lefty, and it doesn't mean that right leaning economic polices are correct.

It simply means the shear amount of evidence supports a different conclusion.

(08-05-2011 01:42 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I never said that was a "massive" tax decrease. And I posted this last week Niner, the average small business makes no where near $250,000. In fact, only two or three of the classes of small business made that much. I believe the average small business made around $100,000.

It's a shame you don't understand what you are reading.

First you'll note nothing in that table gives you a count of each sector. If you're point is the majority of the categories of small businesses don't make over 250k, fine. But that does not necessarily translate to the majority of small businesses. When I talk about the majority of small businesses I should be clearer that I'm talking about the ones that actually employ people. The two man dry cleaners on Main St. doesn't concern me cause he's not an employer of people. So when assessing the impact of tax increases to small business I do it within the context of those that actually employ people.

And it's 6 of the categories if the small business owner isn't married. See Obama wants to raise rates on individuals who make 200k or more per year. So unless the husband or wife is listed as owner, 200k is the threshhold, not 250k. Did you realize that 65 percent of joint filers with income above $250,000 and 50 percent of single filers above $200,000 earn business income? That means that the majority of couples who make over 250k, and half of individuals who make over 200k, have businesses?

The other key piece you are missing is how many people each class of small business employs. It's not just income that makes a small business, it's also how many people you employ. You can employ up to 1000 in some industries and still be classified as a small business.

So I'll ask you, which class of sub chapter S do you believe employs more people, the top 6 in income or the rest? Logic will dictate the ones that make the most money are the ones with the most people employed.

So what happens to those employees with the owners have less money to put in to their business?

You liberals live in the dream world where there's no such thing as downstream impact. You think raising taxes merely increases money to the government and it stops there. But our economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. You liberals are so convinced that the only people who would be impacted by Obama's tax increases are the uber rich who chill on their yachts all day and exploit the working man. The reality could not be more different.

Do you realize if you doubled the taxes on every tax payer in the country we'd still have a 400 billion dollar budget deficit? Raising taxes is not the answer. It will kill jobs in this economy, it will make things worse.

Niner, you should probably investigate how many employes the average small business employs and also what the average small business earns before you continue to bury yourself.

I will post them on Monday for you.

But from memory I think it is around 100 grand with something less than 20 employees.

(08-06-2011 01:43 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Niner, you should probably investigate how many employes the average small business employs and also what the average small business earns before you continue to bury yourself.

I will post them on Monday for you.

But from memory I think it is around 100 grand with something less than 20 employees.

So basically you are dodging. Again. You can't answer the questions I put to you because to do so honestly would illustrate your flawed suppositions.

When you ready to man up and talk reality let me know.