Race Based State Of The Union, Where Is AG Holder?

The Attorney General of the US, Eric Holder, said that we needed to stop being cowards and discuss race with each other. He thinks that part of the problem is that while we work with people of other races we all tend to go home and spend our time with folks who are the same as we are. His assumption is that our down time does not include people of other races.

Perhaps there would not be these racial divides of which he speaks if he would help to end some of the practices that give preference to minorities. Perhaps if he could help put an end to things like the Congressional Black Caucus (and Congressional Hispanic Caucus), the UNCF, NAACP, Black History Month, Black Pride Day and any number of other items that are divisive, things might be as he wants.

The icing on the cake is the “State of the Black Nation.” It is an event that has been going on for about 10 years and Obama recently gave an address there. The question is, are we not ONE Nation under God? Why is there a Black Nation that we need a state of?

At the event Obama told the audience that the economic problems will be harder on blacks. Obama told those in attendance; “tough times for America often mean tougher times for African-Americans.” He left out that times are tough for blacks because of their blind devotion to the Democrats and their policies that have held blacks down. The rate of black households without a father is around 70% and black on black crime is extremely high. Blacks attend the public schools run by unions and the teachers in them and the black community has a high drop out rate. The black community is failing its own because the Democrats have put into place programs that keep them down. Yes, many non blacks go to these schools and they have failures as well. Perhpas the biggest indicator of success is a house with TWO parents.

Rush Limbaugh addressed the Conservative Political Action Conference on Saturday and said this:

Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people. [Applause] When we look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government. [Applause] Rush Limbaugh

I believe this to be true. We do not look at a group of people and see blacks, or Hispanics, or victims of any kind, we see Americans. We see people who can achieve great things if government would step aside and quit telling them they are aggrieved and can only make it with the help of the government. The left will call us racists and say we are a party of old white men but the reality is, the Democrats are the ones who constantly tell groups they can not make it on their own. It is the Democrats who ensure that groups of people are kept downtrodden so that they continue to depend on government to live. Look at how any black who dares to be a conservative is treated.

It is all done in the name of votes.

As for Obama’s claim that tough times for America means tougher times for African Americans, perhaps that is because those tough times include out of control spending and oppressive taxes on the very people who create jobs. Perhaps it is because people with a good education get the best jobs, particularly in a bad economy because employers need the best value for their money. The educational system has failed all students across the board but has hit the black community particularly hard. Obama wants to send nearly 100% of students to college when in reality a large number of them from the black community will not finish high school.

It is time to stop governmental interference and to allow people the freedom to achieve.

There are many problems but one thing is certain. They are not caused by the relationships people have outside of work.

They are caused by the oppressive nature of government.

If Eric Holder wants to demonstrate some of that change we have heard so much about he should concentrate his efforts there.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

43 Responses to “Race Based State Of The Union, Where Is AG Holder?”

  1. Adam says:

    You mention “oppressive taxes on the very people who create jobs” and I’ve been thinking about this lately. Is this to suggest the very rich 2% create jobs? Where is the evidence to back up this claim you’ve made many times? I’m looking right now as I type this but when you get a moment today maybe you can pitch in with some stuff.

    • Big Dog says:

      Certainly the 2% create jobs and/or wealth (one can create wealth and not create a job). I however, never limited this to 2%. Obama’s threshold is 250,000 in income and that is what he considers rich. The vast majority of small business owners fall in this category and they create the largest number of jobs in the country.

  2. Adam says:

    The top 2% of the US makes $250,000 or more a year, that’s where I got the 2% figure.

    I don’t believe it is true that the “vast majority” of small business owners fall in that category.

    Fact check has this to say about it:

    As we reported June 23, it’s simply untrue that “millions” of small business owners will pay higher federal income taxes under Obama’s proposal. According to an analysis by the independent Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, several hundred thousand small business owners, at most, would have incomes high enough to be affected by the higher rates on income, capital gains and dividends that Obama proposes. That counts as “small business owners” even those who merely have some sideline income from such endeavors as freelance writing, speaking or running rental properties, and who get the bulk of their income from employment elsewhere.

    How exactly does the top 2% create the jobs when it is middle-class consumer demand that fuels a lot of job growth in the US?

  3. Bunny Colvin says:

    “The vast majority of small business owners fall in this category and they create the largest number of jobs in the country.”

    Nope. Wrong again. But by this point few of us expect much accurate information in your posts/comments. The “vast majority of small business owners” do not bring in $250,000+ in personal income. Especially considering that about half of all small businesses fail within their first few years of operation. Where do you come up with this sh!t?

    “He left out that times are tough for blacks because of their blind devotion to the Democrats and their policies that have held blacks down. The rate of black households without a father is around 70% and black on black crime is extremely high. Blacks attend the public schools run by unions and the teachers in them and the black community has a high drop out rate. The black community is failing its own because the Democrats have put into place programs that keep them down. Yes, many non blacks go to these schools and they have failures as well. Perhaps the biggest indicator of success is a house with TWO parents.”

    Hmmmm. So the Democrats are opposed to two parent households while the CONservatives support them? I wonder if the children of the Jane Wyman/Ronald Reagan eight year marriage would agree. Or is it acceptable to raise children in a single parent household as long as the single parent is wealthy? Or white? Or divorced from a U.S. President? Do tell.

  4. Victoria says:

    I don’t believe it is true that the “vast majority” of small business owners fall in that category.

    Nope. Wrong again. But by this point few of us expect much accurate information in your posts/comments. The “vast majority of small business owners” do not bring in $250,000+ in personal income.

    “The US Small Business Administration (SBA) defines a ‘small business’ according to its average annual receipts or the number of its employees.”

    So the maximum average annual receipts by industry that a business can have and still be classified as small business by the SBA. “Crop production of all types: $750,000. Animal production except for cattle & chicken/eggs: $750,000. Cattle feedlots: $2.5M. Chicken/egg production: $12.5M.”

    These are small businesses, according to the SBA. “Forestry & logging: $7M. Fishing: $4M.” Did you know that forestry and logging has as many operators that are small businesses? It’s a $7 million definition of a small business by the SBA. “Fishing: $4M. Irrigation, sewage, water supplies: $7M.” These are various areas. The size of your business — for example, if you’re in housing construction and you’re a business is under $33.5 million, you’re considered a small business by the SBA. “Heavy and civil engineering construction: $33.5M. Dredging and cleanup: $20M. Concrete, framing, and other housing contractors: $14M. Car dealers: $23-29M.”

    If you own a dealership or series of dealerships valued in your receipts (these are annual receipts) between $23 and $29 million, you’re a small business. “RV, motorcycle, & boat dealers: $7M. Furniture, hardware, clothing & sporting good stores,” if your receipts are under $7 million a year, you’re considered a small business. “Electronic stores…” They’re not talking the Circuit Citys, the Best Buys and all this. If you’re a mom and pop electronics store, $7 million is the cutoff line for you to be called a small business. “Supermarkets, gas stations & department stores: $27M.” Anything over that, and you’re not a small business; anything under it, you are. “Pharmacies: $7M.” Most of the industries in the table, such as manufacturers of food, beverages, apparel, print, oil, gas, plastics, plumbing, machinery, computers, on and on and on are considered small businesses based on their total number of employees instead of average annual receipts. Now, in those industries, the cutoff between small and large businesses range from 500 to 1,000 employees per business or industry. If you have a small business with anywhere between 500 and a thousand employees, you are making more than $250,000.

  5. Big Dog says:

    Bunny and Adam, I said that the vast majority of small businesses fall in the above 250k category and, as Victoria showed, they do. Adam, I thought the 2% limit was a little higher. I know 1% is around 386k and thought 25 was a bit higher but we will accept it as correct. It is not that important for the argument.

    Quite a few small business owners file as individuals and not businesses because of all the paperwork. They will be affected by tax increases.

    All of this is moot. No one has been able to explain how this is fair. No one has been able to explain why 2% (accepting the number you provided Adam) of wage earners would pay the bulk of the taxes.

    Why is it OK to take their money and give it to others?

    But we are going to see. We saw it in the Great Depression and we saw it during Carter and we will see now. What excuses will you come up with if this kills small business? What excuses will you come up with if unemployment skyrockets?

    If I were a small business owner and had to get rid of employees I would fire anyone who voted for Obama. Actions have consequences.

    And Bunny, those numbers for the black community are accurate. Why blacks stay on the Democratic plantation is beyond me.

  6. Randy says:

    I’m not sure what that was that Victoria just showed. By receipts do you mean total amount of money received for goods and services provided by a business?

  7. Bunny Colvin says:

    “All of this is moot. No one has been able to explain how this is fair. No one has been able to explain why 2% (accepting the number you provided Adam) of wage earners would pay the bulk of the taxes.
    Why is it OK to take their money and give it to others?”

    It’s quite simple, Dog Ape. Because the platform provided for these individuals to make their money was provided by the U.S. Gubment. And these people who prospered in the good times shouldn’t mind giving a little back in times of widespread hardship. Then, after we get this thing corrected, the smart people can go back to making good money and the mentally challenged folks (most of your readers) can go back to their bunkers to plan for the next imaginary revolution.

    “Why is it OK to take their money and give it to others?
    But we are going to see. We saw it in the Great Depression and we saw it during Carter and we will see now. What excuses will you come up with if this kills small business? What excuses will you come up with if unemployment skyrockets?”

    The Great Depression was caused by higher tax rates on the wealthiest 2% of Americans? That’s a new one. Dog- you’ve said before that you’re no economist but I gotta say, as a former business student, that you may have uncovered some serious sh!t here. Even Uncle Milty and the Chicago Girls never brought this nugget to light.

    “And Bunny, those numbers for the black community are accurate. Why blacks stay on the Democratic plantation is beyond me.”

    I didn’t say that they weren’t accurate, Big Dweeb. You never answered my questions about the Reagan/Wyman divorce.

    Oh and Vick- you can cut and paste SBA numbers to your hearts content for all I care. I know plenty of folks in the housing/construction bidness, and they killed it for quite awhile. Time for them to give some back.

    What do you think about the children of divorce, Victoria?

  8. Victoria says:

    Bunny,
    Who in the #$%& are you to decide for anyone that it is “time to give some back?” You know, why don’t you give me some of your money–I could use a some right now. I know a few people in the housing construction business around here where I live and they are laid off because there is practically no construction going on around here at all.

  9. Bunny Colvin says:

    Vick- If you need more money, get another job. Those in the consruction business in your neck of the woods should relocate to a better market and pull themselves up by the bootstraps. This is what Horatio Alger taught me. This is what (r)epukism has taught us. Stop your whining, as Phil Gramm would say. Recession? Depression? Quit cryin and start workin. We gotta lotta “hard work” (as dubs loved to say) in our future. Wipe away the tears and do your part.

  10. Victoria says:

    I would get another job but there aren’t any but I’ll tell you what raising taxes on those who are still in business isn’t going to make things any better.

  11. Schatzee says:

    It’s so amazing that Bunny told Victoria to get a job if she needed more money. Why doesn’t anyone tell that to people on welfare so that those of us who are working would be able to afford to live off our one income rather than working two to support all those living off the government???

    Victoria – I think you’re completely right. No one should decide when it’s time to give back except the individual making the money. If ANYONE in our country wants to start donating more of their money to the government to pay for these outrageous and useless social programs, they should feel free to do so. I don’t think that would be a problem. But no one coughs up the cash, just the liberal talking points about doing your share. It’s becoming as monotonous as “can’t we all just get along.”

  12. Adam says:

    Victoria and Big Dog:

    It is important to note this difference in your arguments:

    Obama’s threshold is 250,000 in income and that is what he considers rich. The vast majority of small business owners fall in this category and they create the largest number of jobs in the country.

    That is what you first said. This is what you said later:

    Bunny and Adam, I said that the vast majority of small businesses fall in the above 250k category and, as Victoria showed, they do.

    Yes, a majority of small businesses may fall above $250,000. That is not the issue. Obama is not (to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong) raising business taxes. He is raising taxes on people that make over $250,000. Factcheck suggests that the vast majority of small business owners file as individuals, not businesses:

    According to a survey from the National Federation of Independent Businesses, about eight out of 10 small-business owners responding to the poll report that they are organized legally in a way that would require them to pay taxes on their business income as individuals, rather than as a corporation.

    Assume that only 2% of the US makes more than $250,000. I think this is more than fair. Now the Census estimates there are about 24.7 million businesses in America. Assume this translates to about 8.2% of the American public are small business owners based roughly on 300 million Americans.

    What you would have to do is first count the entire top 2% of the US as small business owners, or 24.4% of all owners. This means and then you would still have that 6.2% chunk which is 75.6% of small business owners making below $250,000. We know the top 2% is not all small business owners so the math doesn’t add up in my opinion but either way over 75% of small business owners make less than $250,000 year.

    • Big Dog says:

      I think they are the same. Fall in this category (of being over 250k).

      I don’t think it is correct to say that 75% make less than that. And certainly, not everyone making over that owns a small business. The taxes on these people will be high because they file as individuals. Also, I heard today that Obama will make the Social Security tax apply to all money made if your income is above 250k.

      There are already stories of lawyers and dentists working to see how they can reduce their income to under 250k.

      No nation has ever taxed itself to prosperity and even if we took all the money from people over 250k it would not pay the debt.

      Also, business owners will pass the cost on to consumers so those making under 250k ultimately pay for it. Once the Bush tax cuts expire the middle class will get hit with higher taxes because they benefited the most from them.

      • Adam says:

        They aren’t the same though and the evidence doesn’t fit your idea that the vast majority of small business owners will see their taxes increased. The vast majority of small business owners file as individuals and the vast majority make less than $250,000 and will see if anything a tax decrease.

        I don’t think any serious economist would deny that the people adjust their income and investments to avoid higher taxes but we’re talking about going back to Clinton era tax levels for the highest bracket and the US prospered economically then and didn’t suffer the things you suggest. Republicans said the same thing about Clinton’s taxes and it never came true. What has changed?

        • Big Dog says:

          I don’t see where you get that the vast majority are under that number when a small business has so many definitions that companies making millions can be small.

          Also, Obama will raise the personal income tax and most small business owners file as individuals (personal income) so their taxes will GO UP.

          Clinton era? The marginal tax rate will go to Clinton era but then add on the 6.25% SS tax which is on ALL income for those above that amount and it will be a huge increase. Couple that with reduced itemized deductions and we are talking a tax rate that will approach 50%.

          Once the tax cuts expire those under that amount will see taxes rise as well. Also, the businesses will pass the increases on and people will pay for them.

          You still never explained how it is fair. Why is it right for people who make more to be raped by the government?

          Now you know why businesses go overseas and people find Swiss bank accounts to hide their money in.

          I am going for tax free bonds and other tax free investment vehicles. I have decided to do everything I can that is legal to reduce my taxes. I am tired of government confiscating our money.

        • Adam says:

          We’re not talking about small businesses, we’re talking about small business owners. Obama is not taxing small businesses, he’s taxing people making over $250,000. Some of these people are small business owners, but the vast majority are not.

          You’ve said that Obama’s tax increase on the $250,000 is going to hurt the people who create jobs and you haven’t said how. You said that the top bracket has small businesses which create jobs but that number is minimal. The vast majority of small business owners will not be affected by the $250,000 tax change. It’s simply not reality to suggest otherwise.

          Obama has cut middle class taxes and the middle class drives consumer demand and creates jobs.

          I’m not going to get into debate on what is fair or not because I want to stick to some things that have actual numbers we can put our fingers on.

        • Adam says:

          To rehash let’s go back to what you said early on in this thread:

          Certainly the 2% create jobs and/or wealth (one can create wealth and not create a job). I however, never limited this to 2%. Obama’s threshold is 250,000 in income and that is what he considers rich. The vast majority of small business owners fall in this category and they create the largest number of jobs in the country.

          How does the 2% create jobs or wealth? The vast majority of small business owners do not make up this top 2%, I can show you that again with numbers to back it up. So what is your reasoning?

  13. Bunny Colvin says:

    “I would get another job but there aren’t any”

    Again, any REAL CONservative would simply say that you aren’t looking hard enough. Go back to school and enhance your skills. Relocate if you have to. I don’t see many (r)epukes sympathizing with all them mine-are-ity workers in Dee-troit unable to find work. Quit your whining. We have become a nation of whiners.

    Potsy- I’m just sharing what I’ve learned from Phil Gramm and he rest of the con men with Victoria. I’m trying to help her. Funny that you mention “welfare”, since it accounts for such a small chunk of federal spending. We’re pumping $$$ into AIG like it’s going out of style and you’re worried about “welfare”. Get real. Kinda reminds me of McSame’s attempt to make “federal earmarks” a big issue. They account for so little of fed spending, but he acted like they were the kryptonite that would soon destroy America. Yet now, the (r)epukes in Congress are demanding pork projects for their districts. The hypocrisy of “republicanism” knows no bounds.

    And Potsy, if you cannot live of your one income, I suggest you contact your local community college. Bootstraps, sweetie.

  14. Big Dog says:

    Once again Bunny, you miss the point. Pork, no matter who does it is wrong and it does not matter how much it accounts for. Welfare, regardless of how much it accounts for is wrong and not contained in the Constitution.

    Social spending is the largest part of federal spending.

    Bunny, are you always so condescending? Sweetie? That is designed to belittle a person and shows you think they are less than you.

    Now, I know you are retarded and that is why you can’t get people’s names correct. If by Potsy you mean Schatzee, why would someone with a degree in forensic science and specializes in DNA want to go to a community college.

    Schatzee never said she could not live on her salary. She said she did not want to pay her money for someone else.

    But then again, comprehension is not your strong suit. You might be better at it if you did not make such lame attempts at being derisive.

    • Bunny Colvin says:

      Ah, the derisiveness card. Interesting play here, Dog. After all, you’re the one who asked “how old I was when my father first molested me” the other day. I’ll try not to be so condescending, but it’s hard for me to take you seriously when you are wrong so often. Many of your posts (Kentucky: Obama’s Katrina comes to mind) are just outright ridiculous.

      Retarded? Good one, Dog Dweeb. So clever.

  15. Randy says:

    It seems people are blurring the line between a small business’s revenues and the personal income of the business owner. A small business can have revenues well into the millions of dollars and the owner might still make well below $250,000. In many instances business owners sometimes make less than some of the people they employ. It’s an important distinction that I think is being missed.

    • Bunny Colvin says:

      The line is being blurred on purpose, Randy. The Dog and Pony Show wants everyone to believe that it is the PERSONAL income of the business owner pocketing less than 250k that is “under attack”. Facts matter little to many of these folks.

  16. Big Dog says:

    Bunny, you wouldn’t know a fact if it bit you in the

    I am talking about people who make and claim over 250k.

    Adam, there have been lots of numbers presented and the only thing I can say is, we will see. The small business groups are not happy but hey, what do they know.

    As for cutting the taxes of the middle class, did not happen. Their taxes will increase and any tax that is increased on the wealthy will trickle down.

    Personally, I am at the point where I don’t really care. I have a job and I will do just fine with my taxes. Let the others worry about themselves.

    My gripe is with the attack on the so called rich and the redistribution of wealth.

    Charities will suffer but it is OK, Obam bam will give them gubmint money

  17. Big Dog says:

    And many business owners (small business) claim their income as personal so they do not have to fiddle with all the other paperwork.

  18. Big Dog says:

    Victoria pointed out all the ways one could be a small business.

    Your numbers don’t add up Adam. How do you show that the majority of small business owners are not in the top 2%?

  19. Big Dog says:

    As I recall Bunny, you were the one who kept asking me if I used drugs because it would explain a lot. I figured that your low self esteem and need to deride everyone was from being abused by your father. I mean, it would explain a lot.

    You see, it works both ways.

    Wrong is a matter of opinion. I happen to think you are wrong most of the time.

    But just blame George Bush and you will feel better.

    Obama id responsible for the nearly 3000 point drop in the market since he was inaugurated. Happened on his watch, belongs to him.

    Democrats took control of Congress Jan 2007. Market was at 13,500 then. It is half of that and it is all on their watch.

    Belongs to Obama and the Democrats. All his problems were not inherited and all the mess since he was sworn in is his.

    Deal with it. Your messiah is a phony.

  20. Schatzee says:

    I wish some of these liberal ranters would learn to read (not to mention write) properly. They will never see what kind of mess this man is making – it means they’d have to admit they were wrong.

    When the stock market tanked during Bush’s terms, it was a sign of poor policies and political missteps. Now, we should not use the market as a barometer for the economy. They keep changing the rules during the darn game.

    And it’s all well and good to tell those of us working hard for a living to “deal with it” and “cut back” so we won’t have to work two jobs to make a decent living (if my taxes weren’t constantly going up and out to others I would be fine thank you very much) but they fail to see where the government needs to do the same. Earmarks are only a “small” portion of spending? Hell, that whole bill was practically earmarks. But given that that wascally wabbit could be right on this one, don’t a whole bunch of little dollars make big, fat, juicy dollars? Same for welfare. You think it’s small spending but when these same people are collecting checks, food stamps, free healtchare, prescriptions, tax rebates, subsidized housing, subsidized schooling and daycare — that really starts to add up and federal money does go to support or fill out many of these programs.

    I think it’s time to start making people responsible for their actions and that includes having children you can’t afford to take care of (hello octomom and that’s just one). How about everyone on welfare passing drugs tests before getting their check and then being REQUIRED to work 8 hours a day doing something productive for the State/Local government. Providing daycare for other workers, cleaning highways, cleaning buildings, the list goes on.

    I don’t even know why I bother reading those posts when someone so obviously lacking in intelligence is telling others to attend community college to get ahead. Give me a break.

  21. Adam says:

    Your numbers don’t add up Adam. How do you show that the majority of small business owners are not in the top 2%?

    It’s pretty straight forward math but double check all this for me since there’s some confusion.

    So $250,000 earned income is about at the 2% mark, or close enough you won’t argue me on it.

    The census believed that at some point in the last few years the were about 24.7 million businesses in America, like 99.9% of them with less than 500 employees. Assume this translates to about 8.2% of the US population given the current population estimate of about 300 million folks.

    So tell me how the majority of 8.2% fits in 2%. That is why I said at least 75% of small business owners fall below the $250,000 mark. It’s much more than 75% however. Estimates believe that while small businesses number in the millions the number of affected business owners will number in the thousands.

  22. Adam says:

    Some better sources and differing numbers:

    Dan Gross of Newsweek:

    In fact, as this chart shows, only 2.245 million U.S. households, the top 1.9 percent, had income greater than $250,000 in 2007.

    Small Business Administration:

    In 2007, there were 27.2 million businesses in the United States, according to Office of Advocacy estimates.

    Small firms with fewer than 500 employees represent 99.9 percent of the 27.2 million businesses …

    Population of US:

    303.8 million

    So 99.9% of 27.2 million is 27.17 million small businesses. Assuming there is 1 owner for every business (there could be more than one maybe and that would make it even more impossible), this means that 27.17 million small business owners make up 8.9% of the US population.

    It is mathematically impossible for over half of small business (4.45% of US population) owners to be in the top 2% of income earners in the US.

    Right?

  23. Adam says:

    Or maybe my percentage numbers over complicate it. Let’s consider this alternative:

    2.245 million U.S. households earning above $250,000. If we went out on a limb to suggest that entire 2.245 million households all owned a small business (which they don’t) then that leaves 24.9 millions mall business owners making below $250,000, or 91.7%.

    So the opposite of what you assert is true. The vast majority of small business owners earn under $250,000.

  24. Randy says:

    If a small business makes over $250K a year, employs people, provides goods and services, and still files an individual tax return, then maybe they deserve to pay higher taxes. Maybe they should have their heads examined as well. They are already paying more taxes than they would if they simply payed an accountant to file their taxes as a business.

    • Big Dog says:

      There must be a reason so many file that way. Maybe the business tax is less than the individual tax. I don’t know.

      There is no way to tax people over 250k and pay the debt. Even if we took all they made it would not do it.

      The money spent is money that has not been earned yet.

      • Randy says:

        Running a business is more complicated than that. And I don’t believe that many small businesses would file an individual tax return unless it didn’t employ anyone and provided only services that didn’t require much overhead. The are a very few businesses that fit those narrow parameters and even fewer that generate over 250,000 a year. To illustrate:

        A business repairs copier machines. On one job (hypothetical) they charge a customer $200. $75 for a part, and $125 for the labor. That’s $200 in revenue. Now they could file an individual tax return and pay tax on that $200, or they could write off the $75 dollar part and only pay taxes on the $125 in labor.

        That is an incredibly simplistic way to put it, and I left a few factors (like the cost of the employee and such) out, but I hope you see my point. If you add employees to the mix and multiply that by hundreds or perhaps thousands of copier service calls, you end up with lots and lots of revenue. Why would anyone want to pay taxes on all those revenues when they didn’t have to? I was being generous too by using a service industry example. If the job involved mostly sales, filing individually would make even less sense. These are things that successful small business owners think about when drawing up viable business models. Regardless of what Grover Norquist says.

  25. Adam says:

    We have seen that the vast majority of small business owners will not have their taxes increased. It is true that the top percents of small businesses contribute over half of all small business profit in the country but that isn’t a big concern when you break it down. Those that will see a tax increase will only see a moderate one because the tax applies only to income above $250,000, not to all income above and below $250,000.

    At the same time jobs aren’t like income and won’t be an issue because the top 2% don’t create any more or less jobs than a 2% chunk somewhere in the middle.

  26. Big Dog says:

    I certainly understand taxes and Norquist is the expert, or more so than I am. They might be filing something else. Does not matter, he says that it will affect them and he does it for a living.

    Or to say it like the global warming crowd, the science is settled because an expert said so.

  27. Big Dog says:

    Adam, we have yet to see anything except a bunch of people here speculating and discussing things we know little about compared to the experts and they are all confused.

    Raising taxes will hurt the economy even if they do not affect one single small business owner.

    Raising taxes has always led to longer drawn out problems.

  28. Adam says:

    Everybody take note of Big Dog’s failure to admit he was wrong to say the vast majority of small business owners make over $250,000 despite the fact that there is 10 times as many small businesses as filers who make over $250,000 a year.

    When he realized he’s wrong he changed to “Raising taxes will hurt the economy even if they do not affect one single small business owner.” Right, just like in the 1990’s.

    Luckily Norquist has gotten rich enough off of spreading his partisan tax fear that he can afford to buy a bathtub big enough drown the government Bush built. Thank God there’s a Democrat in the White House now though so Republicans can get back to hating big government.

    • Big Dog says:

      I did not admit I am wrong because I am not. I also pointed out that taxes would hurt even if it did not affect any business owner.

      In fact, for your plan to succeed, you must go after the upper, upper middle-class, those making between $250,000 and $600,000 who are restaurant owners, home builders, labor contactors, architects, surgeons, engineers, hospital executives, college administrators, Ivy-League law professors, and many dentists.

      These households are wealthy, yes; but they don’t own or even fly on $50 million private jets or host private Super Bowl parties. Their income is all reported, and with such good salaries come high insurance and, in the case of business, constant reinvestment and expensive inventories. They are not greedy, but the bulwark of the United States’ productive classes who in aggregate pay over 40% of the collective income taxes, and provide most of the jobs in the country. Under your plan many in these high-tax states will pay nearly 70% of their incomes in FICA, Medicare, federal income, and state income taxes. Why gratuitously mislead the American people that those for whom you will lift FICA ceilings or up their IRS bites to 40% are in any way synonymous with the super-rich? Remember the very, very wealthy voted overwhelmingly in your favor precisely because their riches gave them immunity from high taxes, and in many cases they were far removed from the everyday risk and worry of owning a hardware store or trying to keep together a family-owned construction firm. George Clooney is a world away from a paving contractor, just as making $400,000 a year on call 24/7 is not quite making $40 million investing or $2 million for a cameo. [emphasis mine]

      Source

      • Adam says:

        “I did not admit I am wrong because I am not.”

        Come on now. If you’re going to keep saying you believe the “vast majority” of small business owners make over $250,000 then I can’t help you.

        Once more for the record and then I’ll stop:

        There are about 2.245 individuals or families in America making over $250,000.

        There are about 27.17 small businesses in America. Half of that is 13.585 million small businesses.

        Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me that somehow 13.585 million isn’t 6 times 2.245 and therefore the vast majority of small business owner CANNOT make over $250,000? Really? Are you that blind?

        If you can quote Norquist then I can quote U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner when he says that 97% of small businesses will not be hurt by Obama’s taxes:

        The President’s Budget includes tax provisions to help small businesses. It recognizes that many small businesses are operated as sole proprietorships or through partnerships and other flow-through entities, and leaves the individual income tax rates at which these small businesses are taxed unchanged in 2009 and 2010. By extending the current rate structure for families earning less than $250,000 after 2010, it ensures that 97% of small businesses will receive additional tax relief at that time or see their rates remain unchanged.

  29. Bunny Colvin says:

    Dog Dirt- Oh, I see now. Jokes about child molestation (especially when armed with the knowledge that I work with abused children) are the logical response to my question regarding drug use. Got it.

    Funny that you and your gal pal Potsy are crying about “changing the rules” when it comes to the relationship between U.S. Presidents and the DOW. After all, you’re the clowns that always cried that market performance had no correlation to Presidential policy when Clinton was in office.

    Norquist an “expert” on taxes? Yeah, right. I guess Great Emperor Bush is an “expert” on diplomacy. Get back in the ambo, Doggie. Economics and taxes just aren’t your thing.