You were the one who said small business owners were rich, weren't you?
No I said that they were considered "rich" using the determination of those proposing the tax hikes.
Therefore, raising taxes on the rich means raising them on small business owners, according to your definition, doesn't it? And your illustrious president's definition of 'rich', which you accept almost applies.
Again according to the current Administration it does.
Always the lone voice of sanity crying out in the wilderness, aren't you?
So long as you are determined to be the other side of that coin.
So you support an immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq anf Afghanistan, and the cessation of all tax loopholes, incentives, subsidies, etc. for corporations? Good.
And?
Well it looked to me as if you thought gross revenue = net profit or personal taxable income, based on your earlier comment about "rich" small businesses being the only ones who could hire employees.
That's because you don't read, you just assume and run with that. It's taken many posts to get you to read as much as you have, I'm actually quite proud that my patience has paid off. I feel like a teacher that suddenly realizes their most difficult student suddenly is able to actually understand the difference between a plus and a minus.
So you understand that operating costs, including labor, come out of revenue, not the owner's dividend or salary? Good.
You just now looked up a basic economics book? Jeebus, we've been speaking this long about it and now you suddenly decide to educate yourself? Again, my patience pays off... It's causing miracles to exist. Somebody here take a picture!
Not by me. Not by the wealthy, either, as cited previously.
Which is foolish, we're holding a conversation on a political board using the current political definitions. It's not difficult. You want to move the goal posts, I understand why, I'd want to avoid the conversation too if I were arguing your side as poorly as you are.
And where did I say that I support tax increases on people making over $250K @ year?
They are the only ones proposed, you know how you complained about how republicans didn't want to raise taxes? Those are the ones you were talking about, as they were the only ones proposed.
Like when I heard Boehner say "tax hikes are off the table", you mean? Need me to post the link again?
No, like when you ignored the fact that I pointed out in the exact same sentence that you say one thing, but really wanted to complain about a different thing. Basically I pointed out to you that the spending cuts were not in "only what republicans hate" and then stated that you were really only upset about the fact that they refuse to raise taxes.
Did anyone say "Obama" did that? Yet the government manifestly did. Extending the Bush tax cuts in a financial downturn is a good idea?
Yes, because increasing taxes during it is foolish, allowing tax rate cuts to expire would be stupid at this time. I'm sure you remember reading that, well you probably don't but you should. It was like two posts ago. The only person proposing any tax credits to companies is Obama, so I have to assume you meant that Obama was proposing a bunch of corporate welfare.
Like most of the GOP legislators on the Hill? OK.
Sure, if you think that is what they support then argue with them about it rather than assuming it is something that I support.
Ron Paul agrees with you that tax cuts don't deny the government money. I don't.
That's because you think that higher price tags mean you've already made money. It's stupid. Rates do not make revenue, the economy must function effectively and grow to increase revenues. It really isn't a zero sum game.
You're once again advocationg trickle-down; cut tax rates and the increase in productivity will make up for it in total revenue.
A free market shouldn't need "pushing" by government bailouts, or tax cuts, particularly when we face a $14 trillion debt, should it?
Again, nobody in this conversation between you and I have advocated bailouts. In fact I have spoken against them several times in the last few posts that you can't remember because you don't actually read except for those few focus words that I spoke of earlier. You were doing so well at the beginning of your post but now have totally reverted. Only half a post is all it takes for you to fail at even self-reform.
Here's a little background:
The package would cost about $900 billion over the next two years, to be financed entirely by adding to the national debt, at a time when both parties are professing a desire to begin addressing long-term fiscal imbalances.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/us/politics/07cong.html
Again, if the economy was a zero sum game you may be correct, but it isn't. Rate increases on those who would hire would be detrimental to the government, those people they won't hire because of the increased cost of business won't be paying any taxes and the revenue from the business will begin to drop as people stop spending money... People need jobs to spend money... it doesn't "deny the government" of any revenue, that's nonsense. The money isn't theirs to begin with. It's like saying you are denying yourself profit if you don't increase your pizza prices, even though people are already telling you that your prices are too high... when in fact, you are in competition with other places with comparable pricing and value and you will lose business if you increase the price...
We need the growth so we can get people back to work.
You have no idea what sites I go to or what news and information sources I use on a daily basis, unless I link to them. Why pretend that you do? Try questioning the message content, not the provider.
Actually, by reading your links we can actually come up with a rather vivid picture of the news and information sources you use on a daily basis.
I hope you've enjoying reading my work.
Please tell me how government is to be funded except through the levying of taxes.
Government is funded by collecting revenues. You can outspend your revenue and then decree any level of taxation, but reality is if you don't have the growth in the economy it will collapse on itself over time, if you overtax business so they can no longer compete in a global environment you will chase business overseas, and when the "rich" leave you simply won't have any revenue regardless of the rate you charge. Your pizza business would be lonely in an empty neighborhood that nobody goes to anymore except those who can't afford to pay even your newly lowered prices...
You've mentioned Macroeconomics as though it's a necklace of garlic to ward off vampires. Are you a Keynesian?
If I were a Keynesian I would support insane levels of deficit spending (and the part the current Democrats miss all the time) so long as it were spent on infrastructure. Have you seen me supporting insane levels of deficit spending lately? I'll give you a hint because I know you haven't read much of my posts.... You haven't.
