Republicans vote against their own self interests?

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20100914_GOP_says_no_deal_on_tax_cuts.html

Basically in a nutshell the Bush tax cuts to the uber wealthy had a large part to play in the deficit. Well that and a war or two.

It was taxing of the uber wealthy that helped America land a man on the moon and led to the development of a lot of their nuke stations. Bush being pro-rich cut the tax for the wealthy and basically screwed up the economy.

So what Obama is saying now is to give tax cuts to the middle class. Anyone with a brain knows that the better off your middle class is... the better off your economy is. The bigger the gap between the richest and the poorest, the worse off your country is.

So removing the tax cuts for the rich and giving the middle class tax breaks makes all the sense in the world. The rich are not going to suffer from the lack of tax cuts.. they really can afford it.

What the Republicans are doing is saying that will oppose tax cuts for the middle income earners if Democrats dont extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy!

Whats stupid about this is most of the Republican voting support comes from middle income earners. So basically people who vote Republican (unless you are a top 1% earner)... are voting against their own best interests.

Seriously now.. could a Republican apologetic please explain to me why you would be so stupid as to support the Republicans who are basically shafting their own support base?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is prettty strange and true.

In order to improve the economy and employ more people, we need to get money moving. Our problem is not a lack of money. We have plently of money. Our current economic problem is those with the money (the wealthy) are not moving it.

The way to solve that problem is to move it for them (e.g. government) mandates the spending or by taxing the wealth and government spending it on infrastructure investments...things that will improve Americas long term competitiveness.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Now prove that the tax cuts to the rich had anything to do with the deficit....at the end of every year, Democrat or Republican the debt of the United States increased, that is exactly what the deficit is, the yearly snapshot of the continuing rise in the debt of the United State.

And that problem is from the Federal Government and the programs that came out of FDR and LBJ, the New Deal and Great Society, creating endless government programs that are unconstitutional.

At the current spending levels and debt, the government could confiscate every last penny from the uber-rich and it wouldn't be enough to pay off the debt, and as a result, if such a action was done, our jobs would disappear because industry and business would collapse.

It is those Uber-Rich----and here in America under Obama that is anyone who has a small business, or supposedly $250,000 a year, and those same people employ 1/2 of the private work force.

Yes, take the money out of the pocket of the Rich who own the businesses,

1. To have a profit, to stay in Business, they have to cut some where, and guess where that is jobs.

2. With out a profit the business goes out of business, and again the worker pays for the taxes of the government by loosing their jobs.


Yes, we have a prime example of what happens when taxes become excessive....


The Harley Tax by Wisconsin;

http://www.heartland.org/full/27759/Tax_Might_Cause_HarleyDavidson_to_Roll_Out_of_Wisconsin_.html

Yes, and the result of that tax against the uber-rich, the Employees at Harley-Davidson Inc.'s largest factory agreed Wednesday to job cuts of nearly 50%, or Harley Davidson would move it's operations to Kentucky.

Why Kentucky? because of lower taxes, and a business environment that allows Harley to be competitive in the market.

But if the federal taxes proposed under the democrats continue out of control, guess where harly is talking about moving??

Mexico---Overseas---out of America.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well it is pretty clear that it was alot of wealthy donors that put george II and company into power. And it was george II and company who are responsible for the deficits and the huge national debt. So with responsiblity goes accountablity.

And if george II and his merry band of Republicans were so against Social Security and Medicare, why did they construct and implement the greatest expansion ins Medicare since its creation?

Yes taxes can be burdensome and excessive. But as has been pointed out to you on a number of occassions, US income tax rates are the lowest they have been in 60 years.

And business profits are doing extremely well mr. roam.

http://personal.fidelity.com/products/pdf/corporate-guidance.pdf

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...xtend-biggest-s-p-500-advance-since-july.html

So yet again you arguements don't hold water mr. roam.

 

joe, look at obama and guess what you see.....a lot of wealthy donors that put Obama into power.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63P5Z120100426

President Barack Obama relied heavily on bundlers during his 2008 White House campaign, with nearly 50 fundraisers collecting at least $500,000 apiece from friends, colleagues and other sources, according to another nonpartisan watchdog, the Center for Responsive Politics. Obama's biggest bundled contributions came from the legal, securities and entertainment industries.

 

Lets do something radical for you, let's look at some facts. First Obama did not take money from lobbyists or special interests groups during in run for the presidency. He did take money from individuals and some of those individuals did work on Wall Street. There is no crime in that.

Your article is referencing Democrats at large. Both parties seek out money for elections...so what is the news here? It is a sorry practice, but it is how the system operates. The practice should be changed, and electons should be publicly funded. But until then no matter which party is in office, the wealthy in this nation are going to have an much bigger say about what happens in this country than the average joes or janes.

So what is your point. The wealthy in this country determine the law and our leadership. So they should also bear some responsibility and accountability for the screwups they make (e.g. george II).

 

Wealthy donors put everyone in office.

The Republicans should quit being stupid and pass the Middle-class tax extension. I know the argument about the top bracket actually impacting small businesses, but it is not terribly convincing (I've no idea if it's true, BTW). This is a prime example of Republicans just fumbling an issue because they are disconnected.

 

You are absoutely correct countezero.

 

Kind of a waste of time because your argument is contrived. You're trying to paint the Republicans as wanting to "screw the middle class," when, in fact, the Republicans are just trying to protect everybody's tax cuts.

Clever effort, Wizard, but somewhat duplicitous.

 

it is theoriticly possible for it to when you take into account that a much greater percentage of people are in the top bracket than in some of the previous decades. I believe the top bracket for married couple is 350k now where as 50 years ago it was something like 10 million.

 

All spending increases and all tax cuts (below some very high marginal tax rate that the USA is not at where a Laffer like curve would be true) increase the deficit.

Which parts of my above statement do you disagree with?

Republican spokes people keep saying small businesses create most of the jobs which is true. Then in the next sentence they try to imply that these small businesses are owed by people earning more than $250,000 a year which I don't think is true. The majority of small businesses are owned by people earning less than $250,000.

This statement is wrong. Federal and State income taxes on business are paid on profits not on operations. This argument would work better as an argument against sales taxes but Republicans usually favor shifting tax burden from income tax to sales tax.

The $250,000 + that some business owners earn is their profits. You don't get taxed on money you did not earn. There is no connection between taxes on corporate profits and how large the business should be. Demand for the the goods and services produced by the businesses determines how large a business should be.

Whether a business owner can self finance a business expansion or must get a bank loan for a business expansion might be in part determined by the owners tax rate in earlier years but that is not the Republican talking point.

The companies should leave the USA for cheaper labor regardless of the tax situation. Why should anybody hire over payed Americans or Japanese or Europeans?

 

Whuuuut? Basic commons sense here, man. If I pay more in taxes, I take home less profit. If I take home less profit, I have less money to pay my mortgage and my kids' college tuition. So I make up for the loss in profit by laying one of my workers off or by not going ahead and hiring that new guy I was thinking about adding to the payroll.

Economics 101

 

Less profits are the same as less income.

Less income is the same as less demand for business profit-making products and services.

Empty, dusty, decaying business buildings with permanent FOR SALE signs on their doors, are the same as empty, dusty, houses with permanent FOR SALE signs on their doors.

 

A couple of things...most small businesses pay zero income tax. So a tax increase has ZERO effect on the books of the company. And you undoubltly will say, well why is that? And that is because most small businesses are Chapter S Corporations or LLC's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_corporation

And as a Chapter S or an LLC owner, I will also be paying myself a salary if I am a business owner and working in the business. My salary would not be a part of the profit. So your Republican arguements just don't hold water.

Two, a good business owner is always going to do what is best for his/her business regardless of income taxes. That means keeping your customers satisfied. And if it takes two workers or a hundred workers to keep your company profitable, that is the number of workers you are going to have on staff...if you are a good business person. As a business person, you need to make a profit. Income taxes come after you have made a profit. Income tax is the consequence of running a good and efficient business. You pay your expenses with cash, not profits.

A fool makes extra profits (temporarily) by degrading the quality of his/her product because of an income tax consequence. A good business always looks for ways to keep unecessary costs down and profits up regardless of income tax rates.

And as a business owner, I will continue to run he business as long as it continues to generate sustained positive cash flow. You should also know that "profit" is a theoritical number it is not a number that you can put into the bank every quarter or every year. There is a difference between profit and cash. You put cash in the bank.

 

Doesn't really matter how many people are in the top bracket.

Their money trumps, simply because it would take a lot of money from a lot of people to match what they donate -- and most middle class give piddling amounts (in comparison), while the lower class give little or nothing. And nowadays you have PACs and 501 (c) 3's and NGO's all splashing out cash that is essentially unregistered.

 

I agree but the direct effect of reducing IRS collections is relatively minor compared to the much larger indirect effects discussed below.

The ultra rich (<2% of the populations who received 1/3 of all the tax reduction) could afford to charter planes and fly their advisory staff to China to negotiate partial or total ownership of new factories they would build with GWB’s “trickle down” tax relief. For one specific example Warrant Buffett owns 10% of the Chinese BYD motors factory.

Very few super rich were stupid enough to invest in the US where labor cost were three or more times higher, the potential market much smaller, and the GDP growth rate was about 4 or 5 times smaller. Instead they built more modern factories in China. US’s older factories (many in the car industry from the 1950s) could not compete so they either closed or outsourced many jobs. This lack of, or greatly reduced, economic activity, called a recession, (GWB had two start in his term) reduced the IRS tax collections at least 50 times more than the direct effect of tax rebates.



Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing again and expecting different results. The only difference if the tax cuts for the super rich (the < 2% of the populations) are continued is that this time the new factories they build will be in Vietnam and Indonesia instead of more in China as real wages in China are now rapidly increasing (~15% year and much more on in the coastal areas)

The end result will be the same – more US factories will close and out sourcing will increase so IRS tax collections will decrease further. That combined with even greater demands for / need of/ unemployment checks will increase US deficits even faster.

PS; By Einstein's definition many Republicans are insane (or simply not capable of understand recent history).

SUMMARY: Great wealth available for investment ALWAYS “trickles down” to make new jobs but they will be in countries where the GDP growth rate is high and the salaries are low, not in the US. These new factories will close non-competitive older US factories and increase outsourcing.

In contrast people masking less than $250,000 cannot afford to fly advisory staff to Vietnam etc. to build new factories etc. They will tend to invest in their US business. Etc. Extending the tax reductions for them will help the US economy. Extending it for the very rich <2% will again greatly damage the US economy.

 

Whuuuut? Basic reading comprehension skills here, man.

I am responding to Buffalo talking about the often repeated Republican claim that reduced take home pay/profits for small business owners leads to them employing less workers.

I never said that small business owner's personal consumption is not affected by their income.

 

Less profits is less personal income for the business owners. More taxes does not mean less profits. More taxes means less profits after taxes and less income that the owner can take home. The business spending on purchases from other businesses and on employee salaries is all pre-tax spending.

I guess I understand how the Republicans manage to sell this bogus economic theory. It seems most people don't understand small businesses.

 

You are absoutely correct. In addition there are other costs of production in the US that make foriegn production more attractive (e.g. no pollution laws to speak of, lower healthcare costs, etc).

 

Healthcare is another instance in which Republicans vote against their own interests. It is in the interest of every citizen that they have access to affordable healthcare. It is also in the interest of every citizen that each of us contributes what we can to pay for our healthcare. No one gets a free pass on paying for healthcare...which was the case before what they term "Obamacare".

The Republican Party is certianly a party of contradictions.