Tea Party in Full Meltdown over "Boehner's Cave"

You're absolutely correct, it won't effect their lifestyles one iota... now, they may have to lay off some employees who work for them... they may have to raise their prices a bit... they may have to cancel their plans to open a new business.... they might not hire as many caterers or servants for their next shindig... Might have to put off trading in the old yacht for a newer model... but their lifestyles won't be effected at all!

Dix, your thought processes are in reverse. People hire employees hoping those employees will make money for them. People do not say to themselves "Hmm, I have money. I think I'll hire an employee." If an employee is making a business owner money then the business owner will keep the employee.

As for the rich spending money the average person will spend a higher percentage of their income than any rich person. If the reverse was true there wouldn't be any rich people so to imply taxing the rich somehow will result in less money going around the economy is .....well....is reverse thinking.

Corporations are currently sitting on a pile of money but they are not hiring because the money they have has nothing to do with hiring. They will only hire if an employee will make money for them.
 
I once stated that the folk who danced with glee at the election of their "tea party" candidates are now stuck with the consequences of their actions.

The GOP is now in a bind.....because their constituents are realizing that it is THEY who will eventually pay the price for the largesse of 2% of the population. The teabagger freshmen are deluded in thinking that they will survive to a second term, and are still pushing their wingnut ideology. Problem is, the GOP mainstay knows that if you take the mask of civility off, all you have left is a blantant drive for oligarchy...with all the nasty connotations that come with it. And Americans are NOT about that.
 
Dix, your thought processes are in reverse. People hire employees hoping those employees will make money for them. People do not say to themselves "Hmm, I have money. I think I'll hire an employee." If an employee is making a business owner money then the business owner will keep the employee.

As for the rich spending money the average person will spend a higher percentage of their income than any rich person. If the reverse was true there wouldn't be any rich people so to imply taxing the rich somehow will result in less money going around the economy is .....well....is reverse thinking.

Corporations are currently sitting on a pile of money but they are not hiring because the money they have has nothing to do with hiring. They will only hire if an employee will make money for them.


Just shut the fuck up! You don't know the first thing about business, or why people hire others, or any goddamn thing else! You are a fucked-in-the-head socialist troll who doesn't know much about anything, unless some other socialist troll tells you what to think. I happen to know quite a few people who are in business, who make over $250k a year, and NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM IS SITTING ON A PILE OF MONEY!
 
Just shut the fuck up! You don't know the first thing about business, or why people hire others, or any goddamn thing else! You are a fucked-in-the-head socialist troll who doesn't know much about anything, unless some other socialist troll tells you what to think. I happen to know quite a few people who are in business, who make over $250k a year, and NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM IS SITTING ON A PILE OF MONEY!

Aww, Dix, my mentally challenged little friend, I stated corporations are sitting on piles of money, not small businesses.

As for my knowing about small businesses I am co-owner of one along with my wife. We just hired two full-time employees. My wife and I did not sit down and say "Hey, we have some extra money. Let's hire an employee." We hired employees because we didn't have enough extra money. My wife’s time is more valuable working on contract cleaning up the financial departments of large companies while employees “tend the store”. That's the capitalist system; making money off the labor of others. That's why companies hire employees.

As I stated before you're thinking is reversed. An employee is not supposed to be a liability or negative cost to a company. They are supposed to be an asset, a money-maker. The question isn't, "Can we afford to hire an employee?" The question is, "Can we afford to NOT hire an employee?"

People get wealthy off the labor of others. If they are taxed their profits will go down so they will want to expand, hire more employees and make more money. It’s absurd to suggest small businesses will try and compensate for higher taxes by laying off employees. Employees are what makes the company money.

Have you been talking to Joe the Plumber lately?
 
You're absolutely correct, it won't effect their lifestyles one iota... now, they may have to lay off some employees who work for them... they may have to raise their prices a bit... they may have to cancel their plans to open a new business.... they might not hire as many caterers or servants for their next shindig... Might have to put off trading in the old yacht for a newer model... but their lifestyles won't be effected at all!

...they may have to...

...they might have to...

...they might not hire...

Another Dix post looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong on supposition and fear mongering and short on things like FACTS.
 
First of all, I don't believe a word you say, I doubt you even have a wife, much less a business. My thinking, you are about 14-years-old, judging by the maturity level of your posts. The mindless socialist garbage you peddle here, is a clear indicator you don't own a business or even comprehend how business works. You have never employed anyone, or you would realize it is very expensive for the employer, and with the uncertainty of your future health care obligations, the cost is unpredictable. Small businesses AREN'T hiring, they haven't been for some time. Raising their tax rates is not going to encourage them to hire people!

Really simple concept: You PUNISH what you want to discourage... You REWARD what you want to encourage! You wish to punish success, therefore, you will discourage success. I want to reward success, therefore, we would have MORE!...More success = higher tax revenues!
 
...they may have to...

...they might have to...

...they might not hire...

Another Dix post looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong on supposition and fear mongering and short on things like FACTS.

Here's a FACT dopehead.... If you don't have as much money, you spend LESS! Now, I know that is a really tough concept for a pinhead liberal to grasp, you're probably asking, why don't they just go to the magic money fairy and get some more? But here in the real world, you can't spend $1,000 if you only have $750, you have to spend LESS! Understand?
 
It is obvious the Republicrats will never cut spending. And when they claim to, it's a lie. But I nearly don't give a fuck anymore. Politics will never change, it's the same old horseshit regardless of who's in office.

I once stated that the folk who danced with glee at the election of their "tea party" candidates are now stuck with the consequences of their actions.

The GOP is now in a bind.....because their constituents are realizing that it is THEY who will eventually pay the price for the largesse of 2% of the population. The teabagger freshmen are deluded in thinking that they will survive to a second term, and are still pushing their wingnut ideology. Problem is, the GOP mainstay knows that if you take the mask of civility off, all you have left is a blantant drive for oligarchy...with all the nasty connotations that come with it. And Americans are NOT about that.

Go fuck yourself.
 
First of all, I don't believe a word you say, I doubt you even have a wife, much less a business. My thinking, you are about 14-years-old, judging by the maturity level of your posts. The mindless socialist garbage you peddle here, is a clear indicator you don't own a business or even comprehend how business works. You have never employed anyone, or you would realize it is very expensive for the employer, and with the uncertainty of your future health care obligations, the cost is unpredictable. Small businesses AREN'T hiring, they haven't been for some time. Raising their tax rates is not going to encourage them to hire people!

Really simple concept: You PUNISH what you want to discourage... You REWARD what you want to encourage! You wish to punish success, therefore, you will discourage success. I want to reward success, therefore, we would have MORE!...More success = higher tax revenues!

Use some common sense, Dix. Do employees make money for a company? If the answer is "yes" then companies will hire employees. Try and understand it has nothing, well, very little, to do with taxes. Companies only pay taxes on any amount over and above what the employee(s) cost.

I'll make this as elementary as possible. If an employee brings in $125,000 worth of profit and the employee's wages and benefits equal $100,000 then the company pays taxes on the remaining $25,000. If the tax rate is 20% then the company pays $5,000 and keeps $20,000. If the tax rate jumps to 30% then the company pays $7500 and keeps $17,500. Of course, if the tax rate was 95% then the company would only keep $1250 which wouldn't cover the expenses of the paperwork involved, however, the taxes are nowhere near 95%.

The reason small businesses are not hiring is because the owners know an additional employee will not be able to bring in a profit because people, in general, are not buying. If requests are not coming in for lawn sprinkler systems then there's little point in hiring installers of such systems regardless of what the tax rate is. Or a company selling widgets. If people are not buying widgets companies will not hire widget makers. :)

I'm sure you've been talking to Joe the Plumber, that bumbler who said he wouldn't buy a business if he had to pay an additional $800 on profits of $25,000. Remember Joe? I wonder what he's doing now besides trying to sue people who decided to run a background check and found he was a bumbling, income-tax evading nincompoop.

From Wikipedia: (Excerpt) On February 13, 2010 Wurzelbacher attended a political event for Pennsylvania gubernatorial candidate Sam Rohrer. Speaking to a reporter afterwards, Wurzelbacher said that "McCain was trying to use [him]", and accused McCain of having "really screwed [Wurzelbacher's] life up".

In Wisconsin, on February 2011, he spoke at at counter-demonstration, during protests against governor Walker's attempts to abolish collective bargaining rights of some public employees. (End)

From a wanna-be plumber (One Toledo Blade article stated, "Mr. Wurzelbacher said he works under Al Newell’s license, but according to Ohio building regulations, he must maintain his own license to do plumbing work. He is also not registered to operate as a plumber in Ohio, which means he’s not a plumber.") to a TV pitch man (In November 2008, Wurzelbacher was hired for a series of commercials reminding people to convert analog television to digital. Wurzelbacher was hired to help consumers understand the DTV transition in the United States through a series of videos designed to explain the changeover.) to political reporter (In January 2009, Wurzelbacher began work as a motivational speaker and commentator. His first assignment was to comment from Israel on the fighting between the Israeli Defence Forces and Hamas, focusing on the Israeli experience of the conflict.) Wurzelbacher's depth of knowledge on any one subject is similar to yours regarding small business.

Simply stated, you don't know what the hell you're talking about, Dix.
 
Originally Posted by Dixie
Just shut the fuck up! You don't know the first thing about business, or why people hire others, or any goddamn thing else! You are a fucked-in-the-head socialist troll who doesn't know much about anything, unless some other socialist troll tells you what to think. I happen to know quite a few people who are in business, who make over $250k a year, and NOT A DAMN ONE OF THEM IS SITTING ON A PILE OF MONEY!

Aww, Dix, my mentally challenged little friend, I stated corporations are sitting on piles of money, not small businesses.

As for my knowing about small businesses I am co-owner of one along with my wife. We just hired two full-time employees. My wife and I did not sit down and say "Hey, we have some extra money. Let's hire an employee." We hired employees because we didn't have enough extra money. My wife’s time is more valuable working on contract cleaning up the financial departments of large companies while employees “tend the store”. That's the capitalist system; making money off the labor of others. That's why companies hire employees.

As I stated before you're thinking is reversed. An employee is not supposed to be a liability or negative cost to a company. They are supposed to be an asset, a money-maker. The question isn't, "Can we afford to hire an employee?" The question is, "Can we afford to NOT hire an employee?"

People get wealthy off the labor of others. If they are taxed their profits will go down so they will want to expand, hire more employees and make more money. It’s absurd to suggest small businesses will try and compensate for higher taxes by laying off employees. Employees are what makes the company money.

Have you been talking to Joe the Plumber lately?

Thanks for injecting a little reality into the teabagging rhetoric/ideology that is spewed by so many. It reminds me of when I was hired as a administrative (sometimes personal) assistant to a guy who was a magazine design consultant. His base company consisted of his accountant, myself and his document manager. The woman who hired me stated that, "our job is to do all the little things that allows the boss to go and be brilliant in order to make money". The boss' business was worth $4 million at the time.

The neocon/teabagger ideology seems not to allow for real life common sense....and I think the American people are waking up to that fact.
 
It is obvious the Republicrats will never cut spending. And when they claim to, it's a lie. But I nearly don't give a fuck anymore. Politics will never change, it's the same old horseshit regardless of who's in office.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I once stated that the folk who danced with glee at the election of their "tea party" candidates are now stuck with the consequences of their actions.

The GOP is now in a bind.....because their constituents are realizing that it is THEY who will eventually pay the price for the largesse of 2% of the population. The teabagger freshmen are deluded in thinking that they will survive to a second term, and are still pushing their wingnut ideology. Problem is, the GOP mainstay knows that if you take the mask of civility off, all you have left is a blantant drive for oligarchy...with all the nasty connotations that come with it. And Americans are NOT about that.




Go fuck yourself.

I don't know exactly what the hell your problem is, but since I'm not the one who is backing the neocon/teabagger GOP's insane push for an oligarchy, your anger is misplaced. The real issue is not to eliminate spending, but to spend effectively.

You keep ranting about no difference between the parties....and in many respects you're correct. However, given the current situation, any rational and objective person would have to lay the majority of the blame/fault on the GOP, who's stated goal is continue the disasterous Shrub tax cuts and to make Obama a one term President at all costs ("costs" being to you and I).

Hey, if you've got a viable political party alternative, I'm all ears. If not, the King of Gods can blow it out his ass.
 
Thanks for injecting a little reality into the teabagging rhetoric/ideology that is spewed by so many. It reminds me of when I was hired as a administrative (sometimes personal) assistant to a guy who was a magazine design consultant. His base company consisted of his accountant, myself and his document manager. The woman who hired me stated that, "our job is to do all the little things that allows the boss to go and be brilliant in order to make money". The boss' business was worth $4 million at the time.

The neocon/teabagger ideology seems not to allow for real life common sense....and I think the American people are waking up to that fact.

Thanks, Taichiliberal. I’m not sure if Dix owns a small business but if he practices what he preaches I imagine it’s not going so well. Hopefully, my posts and the support from you and others will open his eyes.
 
His money comes from his stock holdings not his salary so a tax increase isn't going to affect him.

What about capital gains tax?

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."
 
What about capital gains tax?

"Mr Buffett said that he was taxed at 17.7 per cent on the $46 million he made last year, without trying to avoid paying higher taxes, while his secretary, who earned $60,000, was taxed at 30 per cent. Mr Buffett told his audience, which included John Mack, the chairman of Morgan Stanley, and Alan Patricof, the founder of the US branch of Apax Partners, that US government policy had accentuated a disparity of wealth that hurt the economy by stifling opportunity and motivation."

Most of the tax talk I've seen has been about raising the top marginal tax rate, not capital gains. That's not to say no one has brought up cap gains but from what I've read its been the individual rate.
 
I don't know exactly what the hell your problem is, but since I'm not the one who is backing the neocon/teabagger GOP's insane push for an oligarchy, your anger is misplaced. The real issue is not to eliminate spending, but to spend effectively.

your problem is you refuse to acknowledge that spending effectively means eliminating some spending.
 
Use some common sense, Dix. Do employees make money for a company? If the answer is "yes" then companies will hire employees.

The average employee working for the average company in America, cost the employer approximately $8,500 per year, in addition to their salary. Typical business models are based on a 20-25% cost of labor, so the employee would have to generate profitability of around $40,000 per year, just to pay the cost of hiring them. When you add in their actual salary or hourly pay, you can see where a typical employee has to generate a tremendous amount of revenue, to make it a profitable ROI for the employer. Now come the pinheads, clamoring for a tax increase on small business owners, which just serves as one more reason not to bother hiring someone new, because even IF you manage to get a decent ROI, the taxes are higher, so you still don't get to keep your profits. What is their incentive for hiring new employees, if the extra money they make will simply be displaced by a higher tax rate?
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
I don't know exactly what the hell your problem is, but since I'm not the one who is backing the neocon/teabagger GOP's insane push for an oligarchy, your anger is misplaced. The real issue is not to eliminate spending, but to spend effectively.

your problem is you refuse to acknowledge that spending effectively means eliminating some spending.

Ahhh, the key word is "some"....of which I have no objection. The sheer idiocy of Ryan's proposal is a slash and burn approach to the middle, lower middle, working and poor people of this country while treating the upper middle and rich folks with kid (and in some instances golden) gloves.
 
Back
Top