GOP Definition Of "Small Business" Owner Includes Obama

[bugscoe]

Geez...even Matthews gets it:

"CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have one small tweak to make to what the president said today -- he should stop saying that giving people tax cuts is giving people money. It`s their money! A tax cut is when the government doesn`t take our money. It`s an important distinction.

He talked today, for example, about people getting a check from the government in the form of a tax cut. That`s not the way it works. If tax rates are kept lower, it`s a matter of the check going to the government being smaller. Again, it`s an important distinction."

 

[noob_trad3r]

But nationbuilding and permawar enriches the top 2% War is something that cost us money so they should pay higher taxes since they are making big profits thanks to taxpayer funded permawars.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from hermit:

Despite several polls showing support for President Obama's tax proposal, the GOP is maintaining its rigid opposition to any plan that does not extend tax breaks for the nation's top earners. The GOP argument hinges on the claim that ending the Bush tax cuts would affect not only the wealthy, but small business owners across the country. Specifically, GOP lawmakers are repeating ad nauseam the misleading claim that "half of all small business income" would be subject to higher tax rates under Obama's plan.

However, as Bloomberg reports today, there is an overlooked problem with the GOP's numbers. The party's definition of "small business" owner is so loose that even President Obama and billionaire financier George Soros would qualify:

[Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell's numbers only add up if you consider people like billionaire investor George Soros, most movie stars and Obama himself small-business owners, tax experts say.

That's because the lawmaker is basing his figure on a broad definition of the term that experts say includes authors, actors and athletes who employ few if any workers. It also encompasses businesses that many people wouldn't consider small, such as Soros's hedge-fund firm and major law partnerships.

It's particularly amusing that Obama would count as a "small business" owner, according to the GOP, considering the frequent assertion by party leaders that the White House doesn't understand small businesses. Just today, for example, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) described Obama's tax plan as "an assault on job creators" from an administration "with no business experience."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/142940/Americans-Allowing-Tax-Cuts-Wealthy-Expire.aspx

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...sinesses-bearing-share-of-tax-on-wealthy.html

Hermit you are beginning to make me see that Neo-Liberals are almost exclusively people who have never tended to the bottom line of a business.

I can almost tell in about 10-15minutes of whether one has ever been anything other than an employee. If they have only been workers, never employer, or if they have never made and sold anything themselves, they will be liberals. All others are either libertarian or conservative.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from noob_trad3r:

But nationbuilding and permawar enriches the top 2% War is something that cost us money so they should pay higher taxes since they are making big profits thanks to taxpayer funded permawars.

It costs nearly nothing to get a small brokerage account.

Here is a freebie for you.

RTN, BA, MMM, CAT,LMT, UTX.


There you go, trade your beliefs, it is the true beauty of this nation.

 

[hermit]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Hermit you are beginning to make me see that Neo-Liberals are almost exclusively people who have never tended to the bottom line of a business.

I can almost tell in about 10-15minutes of whether one has ever been anything other than an employee. If they have only been workers, never employer, or if they have never made and sold anything themselves, they will be liberals. All others are either libertarian or conservative.

Ya right, an article in Bloomberg which points out the fallacy of GOP talking points is a reflection of the poster quoting the article.

Meanwhile, why don't you explain the job growth under Bush with all the tax cuts compared to previous administrations -instead of the ad hom.

 

[hermit]

Quote from 377OHMS:

lol hey!, I'm trying to be reasonable here so don't just grab huge chunks of real-estate.

I said that I thought that continuing the current tax situation did not represent an undue burden on revenue collection and that it was a bad time to allow the tax rates to revert upward for households. So, I'm for keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, all of them.

The administrations big problem is on the spending side.

How do you propose to pay for the wars and the 700 billion dollar Medicare reform under Bush?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from hermit:

Ya right, an article in Bloomberg which points out the fallacy of GOP talking points is a reflection of the poster quoting the article.

Meanwhile, why don't you explain the job growth under Bush with all the tax cuts compared to previous administrations -instead of the ad hom.

Not an ad hom, calling you stupid, which I have not done, is an ad hom. I stated a trend, which you have unknowingly confirmed by taking offense to it.

The Bush cuts were not deep enuf, that is the answer to your question, cut tax revenue enough to have a real impact, make those cuts long enough for business to react to it.

Bush is of course held to account for starting two wars, but Bush is nearly two years gone now. At some point we need to move forward, don't ya think?

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from hermit:

How do you propose to pay for the wars and the 700 billion dollar Medicare reform under Bush?

Reductions in wasteful discretionary spending. The war is off-budget because we aren't always in wars.