• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

GOP leaders remove 4 from plum House committees

I was not a government employee when I got EIC. You are dodging a basic fact 'working folks' are just that- cops, soldiers, firefighters, and teachers are all 'working folks'. That you attempt to segregate 'government workers' from 'working folks' is telling.

Now back to WIC, reduced price lunches, and EIC. You seem to not know these programs and who is eligible. Reduced price lunches are for people who have jobs so they don't qualify for free lunches for their kids at school. WIC is for anyone earning under a certain amount, depends on the state, for pregnant moms and young kids. Earned Income Credit (has a new name these days) is for folks filing taxes, have dependent children, and earn under a certain amount.

Millions of 'working folks' qualify for and use the three programs who are not government workers. Anyone who earns under certain amount, not just Gubmint workers use these programs.

Again I don't see people rolling their eyes over a black conservative... they are doing so because you don't see government workers as working folks. You don't understand what programs are out there for 'working folks' and you make unsupportable wild-assed claims about 'working folks' you claim to know in the oilfield who don't take a single taxpayer dime :roll:

Bet their wives and children do.... :peace
 
haymarket said:
The Weekly Standard no less. :roll:;) Does William Kristol still become visibly aroused at the mere mention of Sarah Palin?
Click to expand...

The Weekly Standard! The publication that said Iraq would be a cake walk and Bush's tax cuts would lead to prosperity.

Kristol has a 100% trackrecord for being wrong.
 
apdst said:
oh, is that it? They're not consultants, they're his propaganda ministers? :lamo

They met with Obama so he could issue them their talking points?

You should have quit while you were ahead!
Click to expand...

Waaaaaa! The president met with the press. Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Is this the same libral media that conspired to publish all those "fake" polls before the election showing Obama would win.

Give up the libral media meme. It's a loser for you rightwingers.
 
haymarket said:
The Weekly Standard no less. :roll:;) Does William Kristol still become visibly aroused at the mere mention of Sarah Palin?
Click to expand...

If you would have bothered to actually read the article, you would see that it came from Huff Po. I guess Huff Po is a part of the Right wing propaganda machine, too. :lamo
 
apdst said:
If you would have bothered to actually read the article, you would see that it came from Huff Po. I guess Huff Po is a part of the Right wing propaganda machine, too. :lamo
Click to expand...

The article is from the Weekly Standard which purports to be reporting on huffpost journalist tweets, which probably means that the Weekly Standard took them out of context. It's what it does.
 
apdst said:
Why do you want to raise taxes on small businesses?
Click to expand...

Because a business that makes over $250,000 PROFIT is not all that "small".
Only about 3% of VERY sucessful "small businesses" will pay a few % more on their Profits OVER $250,000. I think they will survive.
If they don't like paying a little more, they can always give their employees a raise and lower their profits so they won't make over the cutoff.
Data shows that very thing happening in the 1990's when Clinton first set these rates. Wages went up and so did profits.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Because a business that makes over $250,000 PROFIT is not all that "small".
Only about 3% of VERY sucessful "small businesses" will pay a few % more on their Profits OVER $250,000. I think they will survive.
If they don't like paying a little more, they can always give their employees a raise and lower their profits so they won't make over the cutoff.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, they are...lol! You've never run a business before. Have you?

Data shows that very thing happening in the 1990's when Clinton first set these rates. Wages went up and so did profits.
Click to expand...

We weren't in a recession. Nor was Obamacare taking effect with those tax hikes.

Not to mention, there is no $250,000 hard-deck on corporate taxes.
 
apdst said:
If you would have bothered to actually read the article, you would see that it came from Huff Po. I guess Huff Po is a part of the Right wing propaganda machine, too. :lamo
Click to expand...

If you had bothered to read your own article you would see it is indeed from the Weekly Standard. Your own link says so. As does the masthead on the article itself.
 
apdst said:
Uh, yeah, they are...lol! You've never run a business before. Have you?



We weren't in a recession. Nor was Obamacare taking effect with those tax hikes.

Not to mention, there is no $250,000 hard-deck on corporate taxes.
Click to expand...

What is obvious is you never have run a small business. Manufacturing is 50 to 1500 employees, wholesaling 100 to 500, services up to 21 MILLION in gross receipts...

What most 'conservatives' call small business is actually micro, mom and pop, and hobby businesses.

Speaking of corporations, some micro businesses take advantage of the far more favorable tax structure a corporation enjoys and call themselves a corporation. The ones I know are single person businesses, consultants and the like. They pay themselves as an employee, the corp picks up many costs for the 'employee'.

Many family farms are incorporated. It is quite common these days, I know one that had on it's board a 6 and 9 year old child!
 
notquiteright said:
What is obvious is you never have run a small business. Manufacturing is 50 to 1500 employees, wholesaling 100 to 500, services up to 21 MILLION in gross receipts...

What most 'conservatives' call small business is actually micro, mom and pop, and hobby businesses.

Speaking of corporations, some micro businesses take advantage of the far more favorable tax structure a corporation enjoys and call themselves a corporation. The ones I know are single person businesses, consultants and the like. They pay themselves as an employee, the corp picks up many costs for the 'employee'.

Many family farms are incorporated. It is quite common these days, I know one that had on it's board a 6 and 9 year old child!
Click to expand...

You use the SBA.gov definition of small business correct?

I really don't buy there definition. I believe those mom and pops that you are leaving out provide:

Employ 70 million US citizens
Represent 99% of US firms
Generate 90+% of all new jobs
Pay 45% of total US payroll
Produce 13 times more patents than large firms
Produce 30% of all exports

And up until Nov 11 from Jan 10, those small businesses accounted for 98% of the jobs created. But that is under the American definition of small business being under 500 employees (should be modified).

If we accept the european standard for small business, 50 or less people, small business creates about 35% of the jobs in the US.

Just my $0.02.

BTW...OMG, a 6 and a 9 year old? Teaching them the ropes early? Just there way I guess.
 
I am having trouble finding your source, please post it...

Funny how many HATE when European ideas and practices are mentioned but that doesn't seem to limit using Socialist Europe as an example when it suits. ;)

Yeah many family corporations list minor children as board members. Doesn't mean they understand a damn thing, though I wouldn't hold that against them, I think many adult board members are as clueless as the 'X-spurts' advise them how to vote!
 
The point here is that Republicans should be embracing the message put forth by conservatives, not running away from it. And Im not talking about abortion or religion. No one really cares about that. Focus on dollars and cents. People know that debt is bad, high taxes are bad, and govt running your life is bad. This is what got Reagan and Bush elected, this is what led to a Republican takeover and balanced budget in the 90s, this is what led to a tea party surge in 2010, this is what allowed the Republican to keep the House in 2012 and control tax policy.

GOP leaders are the problem, not the solution.
 
notquiteright said:
I am having trouble finding your source, please post it...

Funny how many HATE when European ideas and practices are mentioned but that doesn't seem to limit using Socialist Europe as an example when it suits. ;)

Yeah many family corporations list minor children as board members. Doesn't mean they understand a damn thing, though I wouldn't hold that against them, I think many adult board members are as clueless as the 'X-spurts' advise them how to vote!
Click to expand...

Some links...

Small Business Produces 99% of Jobs | Jobenomics
How Many Jobs Do Small Businesses Create? Depends What 'Small' Means - BusinessWeek
What is SBA's definition of a small business concern? | SBA.gov

ps...I still hate that you don't use quote function.
 
hate is a strong word. ;)

You use small business in one argument but mom and pop in the other- which one you running with?
 
notquiteright said:
hate is a strong word. ;)

You use small business in one argument but mom and pop in the other- which one you running with?
Click to expand...

Strongly dislike?

I mentioned earlier, I don't like the SBA.gov definition. If you use small business, that is less than 500 employees. I don't know about you, but that ain't small in my book, however it is a huge part of our economy. When I think small business, I think about the less than 100 employee companies. Those account for about 37% of our economies employment. You can see our mega companies have about the same share as well (38%). I would argue that our small businesses (less than 100) are hugely important to our economy and that mom and pops are in fact small business.

a.JPG

Graph is from here:
Firm size and share of employment change, 1992?2009 : The Editor’s Desk : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
 
notquiteright said:
What is obvious is you never have run a small business. Manufacturing is 50 to 1500 employees, wholesaling 100 to 500, services up to 21 MILLION in gross receipts...

What most 'conservatives' call small business is actually micro, mom and pop, and hobby businesses.

Speaking of corporations, some micro businesses take advantage of the far more favorable tax structure a corporation enjoys and call themselves a corporation. The ones I know are single person businesses, consultants and the like. They pay themselves as an employee, the corp picks up many costs for the 'employee'.

Many family farms are incorporated. It is quite common these days, I know one that had on it's board a 6 and 9 year old child!
Click to expand...

Those are small businesses, right?
 
haymarket said:
If you had bothered to read your own article you would see it is indeed from the Weekly Standard. Your own link says so. As does the masthead on the article itself.
Click to expand...

*sigh*...Weekley Standard sourced HuffPo!
 
apdst said:
*sigh*...Weekley Standard sourced HuffPo!
Click to expand...

They did not. They wrote their own story based on tweets made by a person who simply happens to work for Huffington. That is a difference with a distinction. There was no story in the Huffington Post for the Weekly Standard to source.
Your own link went to Weekly Standard........ NOT Huffington Post. Again - that was your link where the story appeared.

But prove us wrong and simply show us where the story appeared on Huffington Post.
 
haymarket said:
They did not. They wrote their own story based on tweets made by a person who simply happens to work for Huffington. That is a difference with a distinction. There was no story in the Huffington Post for the Weekly Standard to source.
Your own link went to Weekly Standard........ NOT Huffington Post. Again - that was your link where the story appeared.

But prove us wrong and simply show us where the story appeared on Huffington Post.
Click to expand...

So, the Huffpo reporter is lieing, too? :rofl

Don't tear an ACL doing all the dodging. :lamo
 
apdst said:
So, the Huffpo reporter is lieing, too? :rofl

Don't tear an ACL doing all the dodging. :lamo
Click to expand...

Where do you get this stuff from? Your story..... your story...... your link...... was from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. There was NO story in Huffington Post. The STANDARD did a story on a bunch of tweets made bty a lady who works for the Huffington Post.

But then - you knew that.

So why do you keep insisting that this came from Huffington when it came from WEEKLY STANDARD?
 
haymarket said:
Where do you get this stuff from? Your story..... your story...... your link...... was from THE WEEKLY STANDARD. There was NO story in Huffington Post. The STANDARD did a story on a bunch of tweets made bty a lady who works for the Huffington Post.

But then - you knew that.

So why do you keep insisting that this came from Huffington when it came from WEEKLY STANDARD?
Click to expand...


Do you have a point?
 
apdst said:
Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

It has been made and apparently lost upon you.

This so called 'news story' DID NOT COME FROM HUFFINGTON POST. It came from THE WEEKLY STANDARD using tweets taken from somebody who works for the Huffington Post. It is not even a legitimate news story and just more right wing nonsense.

That is and was the point through the last many posts.
 
apdst said:
Do you have a point?
Click to expand...

Maybe that the Weekly Standard posted the tweets out of context or not in complete form, which is its SOP for biasing the facts?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom