the real problems with Obama's stimulus/economy/administration

Originally posted by no1marauder
BS.

Further, increasing tax revenues from the wealthier taxpayers to reduce deficits "is a much better use of that money. That is a 'values' statement," the official said, [b]arguing that 97 percent of small businesses "aren't touched by this, and the 3 percent of them that are largely lawyers and lobbyists and financiers … the Republican ...[text shortened]... ww.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/08/wh-dismisses-reports-obama-announce-decision-tax-cuts/

BS yourself

http://www.123print.com/News/How-many-small-businesses-will-be-affected-by-tax-cut-expiration-796

How many small businesses will be affected by tax cut expiration?
By JEREMY ARMSTRONG
Posted: 9/8/2010 9:39:16 PM

As the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts approaches at the end of 2010, the debate continues over exactly how many small businesses will face higher tax rates, with both sides using fuzzy logic.

Although proponents of letting the Bush tax cuts expire claim that it will increase taxes on only 3 percent of small businesses, two American Enterprise Institute researchers recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that the 3 percent figure is misleading.

"The 3 percent figure, which is computed from IRS data, is based on simply counting the number of returns with any pass-through business income," they write. "So, if somebody makes a little money selling products on eBay and reports that income on Schedule C of their tax return, they are counted as a small business."

The two scholars use IRS data to confirm that in 2007, 48 percent of the net income reported by business entities on tax returns went to households with incomes above $200,000. Individuals earning more than $200,000 ($250,000 for couples) would be face higher taxes if the Bush-era cuts expire.

However, the Wall Street Journal article never puts a number on how many households earn "48 percent of all business income."

The non-partisan Tax Policy Center estimates that only 2.5 percent of the 36 million total small businesses earn more than the $200,000 threshold, which suggests that nearly half of all business income in the U.S. is distributed among fewer than 1 million households.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
So we need to do everything possible to save those golden geese. Those who don't make enough money to qualify as golden geese are going to have to pony up!! That probably includes you.

have fun with that. living under a govt depending on the tax revenue from balloon and gift card shops.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
have fun with that. living under a govt depending on the tax revenue from balloon and gift card shops.

so you're admitting that we can't afford to give tax cuts to rich people right now?

Originally posted by Melanerpes
so you're admitting that we can't afford to give tax cuts to rich people right now?

how do you read X from Y?

http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2010/09/09/john_boehners_bogus_tax_cut_concession/permalink/5a7f81607504818cc1dd1acac75a0a29.html

Thursday, September 9, 2010 11:43 AM ET
Yeah! Let's cut small business profits available for expansion by 10-15%

The class warfare rhetoric about taking from the rich misses the main point about the pending tax increases. by raising the top two brackets, the federal government will hit over 50% of all small business income since it gets taxed in sub chapter S corporations and sole proprietorships. Taking this income from the small businesses will mean less money available to expand and hire more people. That means less jobs for the middle class and the poor. Obama's plan to let the tax increase occur but couple it with smaller tax breaks for some small businesses is crazy. It takes with one hand but give back a part of what is taken with the other.

I would make sense to stop the tax increase that will hit jobs. Sadly, the class warfare rhetoric drowns out the reality of the economics. As a result, it is the American people who will suffer.
—jearonso

Originally posted by zeeblebot
how do you read X from Y?

you just said that government isn't going to raise much revenue by taxing places like gift shops -- that would imply that the government is going to having to maintain its taxes on the wealthier people and businesses instead of cutting them.

unless, of course, someone is willing to come forward with some real spending cut proposals and be willing to fight for them.

Income is not the same thing as wealth.

Income is a flow. You get it every period (often measured over a year). Wealth is a stock. You amass it over time (generally by saving some portion of your income).

$250K in income is still quite a lot. Few people make that per year.
$250K of wealth is above average but not a tremendously so.

Edit: The point being that the tax proposals are over income. Not wealth.

r u underwater yet? 😕

did i finally win that whole "haha zeeblebot you BEAR you're full of BEAR POOP the economy's turning up ROSES as we speak" thread?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
e.g.:

....

As for blaming the Republicans, with only 40 and then 41 Senators they couldn't stop so much as a swinging door. The GOP couldn't even block the recent $10 billion teachers union bailout. The only major Obama priorities that haven't passed—cap and tax and union card check—were blocked by a handful of Democrats who finally said "no mas." No ...[text shortened]... 5 has passed so much of its agenda in one Congress—which is precisely the problem.

....

What about immigration reform? All you hear from the Democrats is that it is not possible because they don't have enough Repulibcan support.

how would they get ANY support from Republicans for immigration reform, otherwise known as 'amnesty'?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/16/AR2010091602698_pf.html

About 44 million in U.S. lived below poverty line in 2009, census data show

By Carol Morello
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2010; 11:22 PM

In the second year of a brutal recession, the ranks of the American poor soared to their highest level in half a century and millions more are barely avoiding falling below the poverty line, the Census Bureau reported Thursday.

About 44 million Americans - one in seven - lived last year in homes in which the income was below the poverty level, which is about $22,000 for a family of four. That is the largest number of people since the census began tracking poverty 51 years ago...

+++++++++++++++

It's a long article, I won't post the whole thing... but thank you Mr. President. You did promise change, and things have certainly changed.

The baby in the White House promised that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8% if we let him have his bottle, which we did.

btw, for anyone who buys that line about "the month I (Obama) took office, 700,000 people lost their jobs, blah blah blah ... "

I'm sure that employers by the thousands were sitting around in January 2009 saying "damn it, we still have Bush for another 2 weeks, I gotta get rid of some more people!"