hey republicans

[cyn 10+ year member]

Not shut down his business, but he will stop taking financial risks to improve/increase its size if the best he could hope for would be a return of 10% on any profits he *might* make (hence the term risk). Yes, he could move his further business expansions overseas, but within the context of this discussion, OUR economy, that would be equivalent to doing nothing more to expand his business. I know you realize this, just sayin.

10% is not a whole lot of money in the over all picture. A few of our investors has actually closed up shop and moved to Canada. A few fortune 500 companies that we deal with are in the process of reforming their hiring and work schedules. In all honesty when you have A government or person(s) taking away 90% of what you make, it will get to the point that these companies will shut down and wait for the government to realize that they was wrong then re-open.

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

Would someone please explain to this old dumb country boy how this is moving FORWARD....since Obama won re-election the following companies have announced layoffs and cut backs due to the ACA ......I would assume that the plan to stop the future from having any wealthy people in it is because there will be no jobs to move up from.......most of todays millionaires are 1st generation meaning they worked their way up....the direction we are headed in there will be no bottom to start at....

Company name..........................jobs cut

Abc Glass 70

Boeing 30%

Brake Parts 75

Bristol meyers 480

Cvph medical 17

Hospice NY 40

Energizer 1500

Exide 150

Hawker beechcraft 240

Husqvarna 660

Lightyear network 12

OCE north america 135

Providence journal 23

Research in motion 200

Roketdyne 100

Te connectivity 620

Us cellular 980

Vesta wind 3,000

Westinghouse 50

Kmart and Target announcing store closings and layoffs as well.....This doesn't look like FORWARD to me...I think in the months to come 48 to be exact...a lot of us are going to realize we pulled the wrong handle 2 Tuesdays ago....

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

Would someone please explain to this old dumb country boy how this is moving FORWARD....since Obama won re-election the following companies have announced layoffs and cut backs due to the ACA ......I would assume that the plan to stop the future from having any wealthy people in it is because there will be no jobs to move up from.......most of todays millionaires are 1st generation meaning they worked their way up....the direction we are headed in there will be no bottom to start at....
Company name..........................jobs cut

Abc Glass 70

Boeing 30%

Brake Parts 75

Bristol meyers 480

Cvph medical 17

Hospice NY 40

Energizer 1500

Exide 150

Hawker beechcraft 240

Husqvarna 660

Lightyear network 12

OCE north america 135

Providence journal 23

Research in motion 200

Roketdyne 100

Te connectivity 620

Us cellular 980

Vesta wind 3,000

Westinghouse 50

Kmart and Target announcing store closings and layoffs as well.....This doesn't look like FORWARD to me...I think in the months to come 48 to be exact...a lot of us are going to realize we pulled the wrong handle 2 Tuesdays ago....

The Group that owns Olive Garden and 20 other resturants and other retails, plans to layoff over 800,000 employee's, and the rest put on 30hours a week.

Papa Johns Pizza has already stated Live on tv they will close up doors if they are taxed more on healthcare and other things. so another 100,000 employee's.

Walmart has already announced they will be cutting all full time employees back to 30hours a week after the first of the year.

The 6 companies we Develop for plan on laying off well over 200,000 employee's and slowing down their growth rate of expansion after the 1st of the year.

300 hospitals have already went PRIVATE, another 1500 is in the works. over 50% of the Doctors are working on removing themselves from all Medicare/Medicad government healthcare and going private.

We will see more than 1,000,000 Layoffs by this time next year if not more.

3,000 Small Businesses will shut down between now and this time next year. Another 2-5,000 Mid Size Businesses (15-100) Employees will shut down around the same time.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

And this is why I rarely respond to your posts, you seem to think you are smart enough to talk your way out of any mistake you make. You post that chart all the time, and use it as your proof that 'history proves otherwise' any time someone suggests that lower taxes would help stimulate economic growth by giving more money to business owners.
And its comments like that you think Republicans want govt to play no role in the economy that makes me call you an extremist. Id agree with you if you were to say republicans' argument tends to be muddled in vagueness (they want 'less govt' or 'smaller govt' involvement), but your extreme view only sees them as wanting govt to play no role what so ever. You claiming democrats are centered has no facts to back it up, merely your biased opinion, because you know there is no specific way to define what is a true central position to take. Ive told you before that I think you are a fairly smart guy, and I still do. Its just too bad you get so caught up in the liberal propaganda.

As for fairness, how is it fair to say nobody needs that much money? You dont say how much money you think is too much. Nor do you even factor in that, generally speaking, the higher wage earners tend to have worked harder (either by taking bigger financial risks, or advancing their education to a higher degree) to get that larger paycheck. Again, their are two sides to this debate, your side (that people buying multiple ferrari's should instead pay out that money to people struggling to buy their first home), and the other side (people who work harder or take bigger risks are entitled to the compensation that earns them). You are an extremist because you completely ignore the other side's argument, we've discussed this many times and your rebuttle always simply reverts back to your view, that rich people should support poor people more because they can afford to.

What chart are you talking about, exactly? I posted one about GDP growth and yearly deficits. Neither do anything to prove that point. However, simple logic proves that point. If you disagree, I can pull up the post I made in this thread that illustrates that. And I know that you'd say that it works in that more return on their investment would increase their desire to risk capital and expand which would increase jobs, etc. But unless the tax rate is stifling to begin with, a 10% (or whatever it is) tax cut, I believe, won't increase that desire at any significant rate.

And yes, there is no specific way to define specifically is dead center. However, I don't think you can deny that democrats are much closer to center than Republicans. Can we agree there? If the Democrats were as far to the left as the republicans are far to the right, then they'd be advocating for government control of what goods are produced. And that isn't me exaggerating.

I feel that one you start making around the vicinity of $1,000,000 a year, then you simply don't need anymore money. Your standard of living likely won't even increase at all past that amount, you'd likely just start hoarding it. I mean, is it even possible to spend $600-700k a year? And yes, they have done more significant things (education, risks, etc) to get that amount of salary, but I don't believe they work harder than a family making $4-50k working two jobs caring for multiple children. Does the small business owner who makes $80-200k a year work really hard? Absolutely, I've seen it first hand. But I would think that in terms of "hard workery", a graph's curve would look like skewed M as income increased, with people at the VERY low income (like,

And finally, it doesn't matter why you call me an extremist because it doesn't matter you think I'm an extremist. Call me whatever you way, it doesn't prove anything I say wrong, which, at least it seems to me, is what you're trying to do by calling me an extremist. Because if you call me an extremist, you can dismiss my views without having to actually argue against them, or prove them wrong with logic (which, as you know, I think is quite difficult, if not impossible).

People who exaggerate tend to do so because they realize, consciously or subconsciously, that if they didnt exaggerate, their argument would prove to be much weaker than they are portraying it as. I say this because this isn't the first time you've had to admit you are exaggerating in one of these discussions in which you always try to paint yourself as the one using facts.
A biased conservative could claim liberals want to empower policies that would be extremely detrimental to business owners. Would their biased opinion be more, or less, fair/correct than yours? Please try to answer in a non subject context, because every time you reply with your subjective viewpoint of fairness, my mind always goes back to 2 years ago when you felt it was morally fair to tax all income over a million dollars at a 90% tax rate. And before you try to deny that you said that (as you have tried since then), I can provide a direct quote. I dont bring that up to rib you, but instead to put your view of fairness in its proper context.

I don't think I exaggerate that much. Do I? Are most of my arguments over exaggerations, like those of 007? I don't think so.

And their opinion would be both correct and incorrect. Worker protections & regulations are detrimental to business owners. (You didn't expect that, did you?) Minimum wage makes the employer have way higher payroll costs, and conforming to regulations that protects consumers and/or the envirornment cost them money. Outlawing children workers cost businesses a ton of money. etc, etc. On the other hand, these things improve quality of life, and, in my opinoin, create/support/bolster the middle class which actually allow all these small businesses to thrive. Those policies I mention are like a getting a rabies shot. Sure, it really ***** at first glance, but it keeps you healthy and is helpful in the long run.

And thanks for admitting that you use ad hominem, or, putting my arguments "into context" as though it proves them wrong.

Not shut down his business, but he will stop taking financial risks to improve/increase its size if the best he could hope for would be a return of 10% on any profits he *might* make (hence the term risk). Yes, he could move his further business expansions overseas, but within the context of this discussion, OUR economy, that would be equivalent to doing nothing more to expand his business. I know you realize this, just sayin.

I agree, opportunities to help themselves are better (morally and logistically) than are direct hand-outs. And that's beside the fact that obtaining self-wealth (ie: greed) is a driving factor in a capitalist society. For example, looking at Prox's past view of taxing income over a million at 90%, if that were to occur, we'd see a lot of people get to the $800k-$999k income range, and then stop taking any more substantial financial risks.

I guess my response to this is, who cares? So people making close to $1,000,000 a year don't want to make more money. What is the problem? It might even be a good thing. Maybe it would provent people from exploiting others to make enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have corporations that own and control everything like GE if we discouraged people from making enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have millionaires and billionaires buying our elections and our politicians. Maybe it would stop businesses from forming monopolies or leave more of the market for other people to get rich off of? That would do wonders for our economy. For example, would you rather have one person making $10,000,000 a year or 10 people making $1,000,000 a year? I feel this is a pretty significant argument.

Though the other side of the coin is that is might limit the size of large corporations that are actually helpful. Examples that I think of first is Microsoft, Apple, verizon, Amazon, etc. But if we championed employee owned businesses, I feel like this could be overcome.

And, I would like to introduce one caveat: I think sports players should be exempt. They really do work their ***** off and deserve their paydays. (at least up to $10m a year).

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

What chart are you talking about, exactly? I posted one about GDP growth and yearly deficits. Neither do anything to prove that point. However, simple logic proves that point. If you disagree, I can pull up the post I made in this thread that illustrates that. And I know that you'd say that it works in that more return on their investment would increase their desire to risk capital and expand which would increase jobs, etc. But unless the tax rate is stifling to begin with, a 10% (or whatever it is) tax cut, I believe, won't increase that desire at any significant rate.
And yes, there is no specific way to define specifically is dead center. However, I don't think you can deny that democrats are much closer to center than Republicans. Can we agree there? If the Democrats were as far to the left as the republicans are far to the right, then they'd be advocating for government control of what goods are produced. And that isn't me exaggerating.

I feel that one you start making around the vicinity of $1,000,000 a year, then you simply don't need anymore money. Your standard of living likely won't even increase at all past that amount, you'd likely just start hoarding it. I mean, is it even possible to spend $600-700k a year? And yes, they have done more significant things (education, risks, etc) to get that amount of salary, but I don't believe they work harder than a family making $4-50k working two jobs caring for multiple children. Does the small business owner who makes $80-200k a year work really hard? Absolutely, I've seen it first hand. But I would think that in terms of "hard workery", a graph's curve would look like skewed M as income increased, with people at the VERY low income (like,

And finally, it doesn't matter why you call me an extremist because it doesn't matter you think I'm an extremist. Call me whatever you way, it doesn't prove anything I say wrong, which, at least it seems to me, is what you're trying to do by calling me an extremist. Because if you call me an extremist, you can dismiss my views without having to actually argue against them, or prove them wrong with logic (which, as you know, I think is quite difficult, if not impossible).

I don't think I exaggerate that much. Do I? Are most of my arguments over exaggerations, like those of 007? I don't think so.

And their opinion would be both correct and incorrect. Worker protections & regulations are detrimental to business owners. (You didn't expect that, did you?) Minimum wage makes the employer have way higher payroll costs, and conforming to regulations that protects consumers and/or the envirornment cost them money. Outlawing children workers cost businesses a ton of money. etc, etc. On the other hand, these things improve quality of life, and, in my opinoin, create/support/bolster the middle class which actually allow all these small businesses to thrive. Those policies I mention are like a getting a rabies shot. Sure, it really ***** at first glance, but it keeps you healthy and is helpful in the long run.

And thanks for admitting that you use ad hominem, or, putting my arguments "into context" as though it proves them wrong.

I guess my response to this is, who cares? So people making close to $1,000,000 a year don't want to make more money. What is the problem? It might even be a good thing. Maybe it would provent people from exploiting others to make enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have corporations that own and control everything like GE if we discouraged people from making enormous sums of money. Maybe we wouldn't have millionaires and billionaires buying our elections and our politicians. Maybe it would stop businesses from forming monopolies or leave more of the market for other people to get rich off of? That would do wonders for our economy. For example, would you rather have one person making $10,000,000 a year or 10 people making $1,000,000 a year? I feel this is a pretty significant argument.

Though the other side of the coin is that is might limit the size of large corporations that are actually helpful. Examples that I think of first is Microsoft, Apple, verizon, Amazon, etc. But if we championed employee owned businesses, I feel like this could be overcome.

And, I would like to introduce one caveat: I think sports players should be exempt. They really do work their ***** off and deserve their paydays. (at least up to $10m a year).

Don't Worry to much you will still get your Food Stamps, HUD Assistance and Welfare check next month and for the next 4 years.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

The problem I have with it is that I think of lottery winners and how often they go broke. That clues me into thinking that it's not that we can dump a ton of money on poor people and they won't be poor anymore. If that were the case, I'd support such tax rates myself. The problem is much deeper than that. The best way I can think to help the poor is to ensure there are plenty of living wage jobs available for when they want them. The best way to do that is to allow companies to be agile enough to compete in a global economy.

I don't think giving poor people the equivalent of $10-20k a year is equivalent to dumping hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on them.

and as for making sure there are plenty of living wage jobs, how would that be accomplished? Given the fact that jobs are outsourced because of the profit motive, what if government, which does not operate for-profit, created manufacturing jobs here in the US? Not making consumer good, but what about something like steel production or other comoddities?? I really don't know much about types of manufacturing, but I think it's something to think about.

Somehow she thinks that giving $10 to the government can meet a specific need better than giving $10 to a charity whose only purpose is to to meet that need.

I guess it depends on what the charity is. Is the goal is to help the homeless, poor or unemployed, I say government. If it's Boys and girls Club, yeah, giving $10 to that charity would be more helpful than government for that specific purpose.

IE: Democrats want big government, more people on government programs. Why? so they can keep the votes and keep screwing this country into the ground and have complete control. The bigger the government and the more people that soley depend on the government makes for a bad country. Unless you want everyone giving 50-75% of what their EARN to the government so they can keep padding their pockets.

Yeah, or Democrats just want to help people, because their policies will actually do that.

I recognize I have an equally cynical view of the republican party, that they only give a shit about making the rich richer at whatever expense to the middle class and lie about their policies to get elected. However, I validate my view in that the policies republicans favor, the ones they say will somehow help the middle class get richer by taking from from them, are completely worthless at doing anything other than getting the rich richer. I think republicans are smart enough to realize this, but they do it anyway, hence my characterization of the republican party.

 

I think the Democrats generally want to help people because I find, though research and finding facts for myself (note: I watch MSNBC after I developed my liberal views, not the other way around) that policies the Democrats favor will actually do what Democrats claim: help the poor and middle class, and strengthen the economy.

 

So who is right? I guess it comes down to whose policy will actually help. I'm happy to have a debate about that, but shit like "ARG liberals are greedy and lazy andonly want handouts and gift!!" won't get us anywhere.

So my tax rate before any of my deduction is right around 48-49%, on any amount that I make.

What taxes does that include?

And yeah, if you're only making $10,000 a year, then you SHOULDN'T pay any taxes. Not only is it morally correct and it increases that person's quality of life significantly, any tax money not paid or even refunded is a DIRECT stimulus to the economy. Because if yuu're making $10k a year, a $1000 refund check will get spent immediately and create jobs. Again, this goes back to the policies that democrats favor actually help people and the economy. I don't believe the same for the republican policies. Prove me wrong.

If you're talking about the $10k per contract, then obviously you'd only get thos tax credits once a year, not each contract.

We will see wealthy people closing up shop, either living off what they earned or moving to another country. Just from what I do for a living I see an unemployment rate of over 20% by 2014. Also you will see less full time employee's as they will be moved to 30hours a less a week.

Two issues:

Let's pretend that there was only one company that made pizzas. But then we "taxed them too much" and they decided to "close up sh op" and "move to another country. Does that mean no one would ever eat a pizza again? No. Someone else would fill that void and likely get wealthy themselves.

Wealthy people don't create a market, they respond to it. If a rih person just leaves the country because they're getting taxed to much (a concept I find false to begin with), then someone else will come in and fill the vooid in the market created.

Second. if someone just cuts all their employees to part time, then those employees will likely not care about the business as much, not be as good employees and service will suffer, and then likely customer demand and revenues for that business owner will fall.

This is the full picture that you're not looking at.

I see this everyday as well....A lot of the so called poor are the very ones in front of me at the convenience store buying beer, cigs, and lottery tickets.....dammit they have it bad.....lol

More genius from 007. Yeah, beer and cigarettes. What else would anyone ever need? It amazing any strives to afford more than that anyway!

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

Don't Worry to much you will still get your Food Stamps, HUD Assistance and Welfare check next month and for the next 4 years.

And you expect to be taken seriously? Or is your purpose in this thread only to have temper tantrums that this country is too liberal for you?

A government or person(s) taking away 90% of what you make, it will get to the point that these companies will shut down and wait for the government to realize that they was wrong then re-open.

No one is talking about taking 90% of what someone makes. We're talking about 90% tax on income over $1,000,000. Or do you know the difference? I'm guessing you don't.

 

[cyn 10+ year member]

I don't think giving poor people the equivalent of $10-20k a year is equivalent to dumping hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on them.
and as for making sure there are plenty of living wage jobs, how would that be accomplished? Given the fact that jobs are outsourced because of the profit motive, what if government, which does not operate for-profit, created manufacturing jobs here in the US? Not making consumer good, but what about something like steel production or other comoddities?? I really don't know much about types of manufacturing, but I think it's something to think about.

I guess it depends on what the charity is. Is the goal is to help the homeless, poor or unemployed, I say government. If it's Boys and girls Club, yeah, giving $10 to that charity would be more helpful than government for that specific purpose.

Yeah, or Democrats just want to help people, because their policies will actually do that.

I recognize I have an equally cinical view of the republican party, that they only give a shit about making the rich richer at whatever expense to the middle class lie about their policies to get elected. However, I validate my view in that the policies republicans favor, the ones they say will somehow help the middle class get richer by taking from from them, are completely worthless at doing anything other than getting the rich richer. I think republicans are smart enough to realize this, but they do it anyway, hence my characterization of the republican party.

 

I think the Democrats generally want to help people because I find, though research and finding facts for myself (note: I watch MSNBC after I developed my liberal views, not the other way around) that policies the Democrats favor will actually do what Democrats claim: help the poor and middle class, and strengthen the economy.

 

So who is right? I guess it comes down to whose policy will actually help. I'm happy to have a debate about that, but shit like "ARG liberals are greedy and lazy andonly want handouts and gift!!" won't get us anywhere.

What taxes does that include?

And yeah, if you're only making $10,000 a year, then you SHOULDN'T pay any taxes. Not only is it morally correct and it increases that person's quality of life significantly, any tax money not paid or even refunded is a DIRECT stimulus to the economy. Because if yuu're making $10k a year, a $1000 refund check will get spent immediately and create jobs. Again, this goes back to the policies that democrats favor actually help people and the economy. I don't believe the same for the republican policies. Prove me wrong.

If you're talking about the $10k per contract, then obviously you'd only get thos tax credits once a year, not each contract.

Two issues:

Let's pretend that there was only one company that made pizzas. But then we "taxed them too much" and they decided to "close up sh op" and "move to another country. Does that mean no one would ever eat a pizza again? No. Someone else would fill that void and likely get wealthy themselves.

Wealthy people don't create a market, they respond to it. If a rih person just leaves the country because they're getting taxed to much (a concept I find false to begin with), then someone else will come in and fill the vooid in the market created.

Second. if someone just cuts all their employees to part time, then those employees will likely not care about the business as much, not be as good employees and service will suffer, and then likely customer demand and revenues for that business owner will fall.

This is the full picture that you're not looking at.

More genius from 007. Yeah, beer and cigarettes. What else would anyone ever need? It amazing any strives to afford more than that anyway!

Federal Tax Rate 25%, until Next year it goes up to 28% , | 15% Medicare,fica etc.. | 6% State Tax | and the other crap in there. rounds out to around 48-49%

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

From this day FORWARD I would request that the LIBERAL idiot that calls himself proximity keep my name out of his nasty azz mouth......keep it up Liberal your true colors are shining through......just like any other Liberal when they encounter someone that against their view they resort to insults.......so since you like insults.....here is one for you.......KISS MINE AND MY MONEY'S AZZ.....I would gladly pay for your relocation to a Socialist country of your choice you ******* genius.....

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

And holic, just fairly smart? Come on.

 

[Proximity 10+ year member]

until Next year it goes up to 28%

Only if republicans refuse to compromise. Obama wants to keep it there. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif

 

From this day FORWARD I would request that the LIBERAL idiot that calls himself proximity keep my name out of his nasty azz mouth......keep it up Liberal your true colors are shining through......just like any other Liberal when they encounter someone that against their view they resort to insults.......so since you like insults.....here is one for you.......KISS MINE AND MY MONEY'S AZZ.....I would gladly pay for your relocation to a Socialist country of your choice you ******* genius.....

lol? Because my entire two posts was nothing but insulting audioholic and Flipx.

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

I knew you would like that.....thanks Prox......love ya long time........you make my day everyday.....entertainment at its best......lol

I am the James Bond fanatic and I approve this message!!!!

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I don't think giving poor people the equivalent of $10-20k a year is equivalent to dumping hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars on them.
and as for making sure there are plenty of living wage jobs, how would that be accomplished? Given the fact that jobs are outsourced because of the profit motive, what if government, which does not operate for-profit, created manufacturing jobs here in the US? Not making consumer good, but what about something like steel production or other comoddities?? I really don't know much about types of manufacturing, but I think it's something to think about.

It's the same. Some people can manage money but the vast majority can't. It's not a financial problem, it cannot be fixed by more money.

I am not exactly sure how to accomplish it. In my mind, we have to change the culture of America to be swift, agile, and very responsive to the marketplace. The speed of change is accelerating and the workforce has to be able to be that nimble in order to remain competitive. While the US nationalizing a factory sounds good to create good, American jobs...do you think they will make a product that Americans want to buy? If they could, that would be great. I don't have the confidence that the USG could nationalize a factory and be competitive with the for-profit sector. The post office is kind of a case-study in that regard. Shipping USPS ***** compared to fedex/ups. How come the post office cannot offer real time tracking like fedex?

I guess it depends on what the charity is. Is the goal is to help the homeless, poor or unemployed, I say government. If it's Boys and girls Club, yeah, giving $10 to that charity would be more helpful than government for that specific purpose.

We have resuce mission charities that do that work. They provide the homeless with a place to sleep at night, etc. Oftentimes the rescue missions are key in noticing that frequent homeless often suffer from mental illness etc.

Second. if someone just cuts all their employees to part time, then those employees will likely not care about the business as much, not be as good employees and service will suffer, and then likely customer demand and revenues for that business owner will fall.

I am curious about this myself. If customer service suffers so much that people go elsewhere, only the companies that treat their employees right will survive. I was wrong about this last time when I thought call centers in India wouldn't last because of the poor customer service they provide. And some call centers have came back due to this lack of service. I am not sure how much though. It has seemed to find a rough equilibrium which is what I assume will happen here.

You'll have the premium pizzas who taste a little better, made with more thought, etc that cost $20. Then you'll have other pizzas made by punk kids who don't GAF for $10. There will be two markets. I don't see Papa Johns failing because of it's response to the new rules.

--

Two things

1. I wish you had a comment about my thoughts on Oregon Trail.

2. What do you think are the top 3 democratic policies that have helped people the most?

 

[double 07 10+ year member]

@Proximity ; I would like to see what your thoughts are on the ACA and the layoffs its bringing and I am being serious.....What are the Liberal views and how do we stop the layoffs from a Liberal viewpoint?........or are liberals not concerned with unemployment ?

 

[Flipx99 5,000+ posts]

I don't think Proximity is being a bad sport about this. I think he's wrong. I do not agree that with income caps. I do think he's coming from a good place and I haven't felt insulted by his comments at all.