- Joined
- Mar 20, 2012
- Messages
- 22,714
- Reaction score
- 9,469
- Location
- okla-freakin-homa
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
I'm sure they are, since Obama consulted those two clowns, along with Sharpton on tax rate hikes.
Obama Consults with MSNBC Hosts Sharpton, Maddow on Tax Rates | The Weekly Standard
Obama's advisory staff is trully impressive. :rofl
The Weekly Standard no less. :roll:Does William Kristol still become visibly aroused at the mere mention of Sarah Palin?
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!
The Weekly Standard no less. :roll:Does William Kristol still become visibly aroused at the mere mention of Sarah Palin?
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
Why do you want to raise taxes on small businesses?
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.
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.
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
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.
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!
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!
hate is a strong word.
You use small business in one argument but mom and pop in the other- which one you running with?
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!
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.
*sigh*...Weekley Standard sourced HuffPo!
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.
So, the Huffpo reporter is lieing, too? :rofl
Don't tear an ACL doing all the dodging. :lamo
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?
Do you have a point?
Do you have a point?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?